America's Children Need UN Intervention

September 6, 2019 Update: Since I wrote this piece in March of 2018, the situation for America's children has become even MORE desperate. As mass shootings continue to be met mostly with "thoughts and prayers" by people empowered to actually do something about the crisis, almost all schools now have some kind of active shooter training. Unfortunately, as evidenced in this New Times Report (possibly hidden behind a paywall), such drills may succeed mostly in frightening children and thus creating just one more layer of trauma for them. Soon there will be another census taken, and by late 2020 we should have a better idea of just how bad are other children's health indicators in this country (poverty, access to health care, disease rates, etc.). 
TONY'S MEDIA RANTS from Old Man River Storytellers Group on Vimeo.

In the original column I argued that it's time for youth activists and their adult allies  to petition to bring the US government before the United Nations so that it can answer internationally for its shameful inattention to children's health and safety. I stand by that claim. The year 2019 is the 30th anniversary of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Disgracefully, the United States remains as the only nation in the world to refuse to sign on to the Convention. Here's what the UN says about the meaning of the 30th anniversary: 

The 30^th Anniversary of the Convention on the Rights of the Child is a unique opportunity to put children’s rights, the Convention (along with its Optional Protocols) and its relevance for global peaceful development and co-existence high on the international agenda, to assess the status of child rights and take measures to strengthen awareness, understanding and the actual realisation of children’s rights worldwide.

It is our chance to take stock of progress until now and set in motion the further strengthening of the child rights movement in our changing global context where human rights are increasingly under threat!

What better way for activists in the United States to mark the 30th anniversary than to shame the United States government into signing the document? And maybe even shaming them into ACTING to protect children? 

Here's the original column: 

Every time I see the young survivors of the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School massacre on television I am almost moved to tears. In part it's because, like millions of Americans, I am inspired by how they role model the courage and poise needed to speak truth to power. But more than that is the fact that the "adult leaders" in this country have actually put these young people in the position of fighting for their lives. What kind of a society places its youth in that position? Not a decent one. 

Can the so-called majority leaders of the United States Congress (and most State legislatures) say with a straight face that they are committed to the protection of children while eagerly accepting gun lobby cash and offering "thoughts and prayers" to the families of massacre victims and survivors? No they cannot. 

Can the mainstream media in the United States--a media that cannot question politicians as rigorously as teenagers can--hold the cowards in Congress and state legislatures accountable for failing to protect the nation's most vulnerable? No it cannot.  

So because America's children cannot rely on the key domestic institutions responsible for protecting them to do their jobs conscientiously, perhaps it is time to internationalize the struggle. Truthfully it is long past time. Today's youth activists in Parkland and across the nation, together with their adult allies, should take their case to the United Nations. Before rejecting this idea out of hand, hear me out. 

American activist youth of today, including those in Parkland, those associated with #BlackLivesMatter, and many others, strike me as the USA's versions of the wonderful Malala Yousafsai. Malala is the young Pakistani education-for-females activist who in 2012 survived an assassination attempt at the hands of the Taliban. In 2014 at the age of 17, she became the youngest Nobel Peace Prize recipient in history. The United Nations recognized July 12, 2013 (Malala's 16th birthday) as "Malala Day." On that day she said "Malala day is not my day. Today is the day of every woman, every boy and every girl who have raised their voice for their rights." When I listen to the Parkland youth, I think of another quote from Malala on that day: “One child, one teacher, one book, one pen can change the world.”

Like Malala, America's new young activists are not afraid to take on the powerful.

The only unfortunate part of the UN's celebration of Malala was that it led many to believe that extreme oppression of youth--including the silencing of their voices and exposing them to physical harm--was primarily a third world problem. Try telling the poisoned youth of Flint and their families that "things are worse in the third world." Try telling that to the survivors of mass shootings and the victims' families. They'll look at you like you're a fool or something worse. 

At least third world countries sign on to international agreements that put them on record as committing to do better for their children. In stark contrast, the United States is currently the only nation in the world that has not ratified the 1990 Convention on the Rights of the Child, which the UN calls the "most widely ratified human rights treaty in history." In 2008 candidate Barack Obama said it was shameful that the US had not ratified the Convention, but then his administration did nothing meaningful to make ratification happen. Journalist Amy Lieberman reported recently on how the Trump Administration appears to be maneuvering internationally to weaken even further the USA's laggard commitment to eradicating violence against women and children. 

The United States is arguably in violation of much of the 1990 Convention, perhaps most obviously Article 6: 

1. States Parties recognize that every child has the inherent right to life. 

2. States Parties shall ensure to the maximum extent possible the survival and development of the child. 

The United States is the only country in the world that refuses to ratify the 1990 Convention on the Rights of the Child. Shame. Source: Wikipedia

We adult Americans give lip service to the "inherent right to life" of every child, yet it's clear that that right is greater or lesser based on the child's zip code. Some so-called adults only seem to care about unborn children. And the government's flat-out refusal to do anything serious about solving the problem of gun violence in schools makes it impossible for us to claim that we are ensuring to the "maximum extent possible" the survival and development of the child. In the USA in just the first two months of 2018, according to the Gun Violence Archive, gun violence has killed or injured 91 children between the ages of 0-11, and 447 teens between the ages of 12-17. 

The Parkland youth have already had and will continue to have a powerful impact on local, state, and even the national government. They've pressured an NRA toady like President Trump to make surprisingly rational statements on gun safety. They've even managed to push private businesses like Dick's Sporting Goods and Walmart to put a tiny measure of sanity in their policies on gun sales. 

But even if the movement were miraculously able to get the federal and/or state governments to support gun control measures with wide public support like universal background checks, raising the age for certain types of firearm purchases, and red flag policies that allow for confiscating guns from individuals that pose a clear threat, those would still represent not much more than a band aid in a society where millions of assault weapons would continue to exist without meaningful licensing or registration. Until we find a way to confront the problem of millions of unaccounted for guns in society, America's schoolchildren will never truly be safe from harm. 

Since the United States government has shown time and again that it will place the needs of the gun manufacturers and their lobby above the needs of that nation's most vulnerable citizens, it is time to request UN intervention. If the United States would ratify the 1990 Convention this would be an easier struggle because the government then would have to file reports indicating what kind of challenges to child health and welfare exist in the nation and how we might rectify them.

However, according to Human Rights Watch there is an optional "communications procedure" adopted by the UN in 2011 that allows the Committee on the Rights of the Child to hear complaints from individuals from member countries who feel the rights of children have been violated and that "domestic remedies have been exhausted." Human Rights Watch says that, "The committee may then investigate the complaints and make recommendations to the country responsible for the violation." The US has not ratified the Convention but it is a signatory to it; that by itself should allow for impacted individuals in our country to file complaints. 

Some might argue that it is too early to go to the UN. "Give us time to exhaust all domestic remedies," they will say. Seriously? We have now had so many school shootings that they have become normalized. We can pass tax breaks for millionaires without Congressional hearings because of the "urgent needs of our economy," yet protecting our children somehow does not merit the same urgency. The "thoughts and prayers" crowd not only prevent any meaningful legislation from passing, but they will not even allow the Centers For Disease Control to study the problem. Our domestic remedies were exhausted a long time ago, leaving behind a long trail of blood and tears. Our shameful inaction needs to be broadcast on the world stage. 

It's time to haul the United States government into the United Nations to have to answer for its refusal to protect children. Let the "thoughts and prayers" crowd have to defend their moral and political cowardice before an international body. Let's invite recommendations from the UN. Perhaps then we might move closer to replacing thoughts and prayers with real actions to protect children. 

Censored in 2017

Since 1976, Sonoma State University’s Project Censored has challenged the news media to meet their First Amendment responsibilities. Annually the Project compiles a volume of news stories “underreported, ignored, misrepresented, or censored in the United States.” Media critic Mark Crispin Miller once said this about Project Censored: 

“Most journalists in the United States believe the press here is free. That grand illusion only helps obscure the fact that, by and large, the US corporate press does not report what’s really going on, while tuning out, or laughing off, all those who try to do just that. Americans–now more than ever–need those outlets that do labor to report some truth. Project Censored is not just among the bravest, smartest, and most rigorous of those outlets, but the only one that’s wholly focused on those stories that the corporate press ignores, downplays, and/or distorts.

Project Censored is famous for its nontraditional understanding of censorship, defining it as "anything that interfered with the free flow of information in a society that purports to have a free press." They argue that censorship includes not just stories that were never published, but also "those that got such restricted distribution that few in the public are likely to know about them." I would argue further that modern censorship occurs when the corporate press allows itself to be exploited by privileging elite narratives that benefit established powers and deflect from information, argument, and testimony that expose the rot at the core of that establishment. 

Censored 2018: Press Freedoms in a "Post-Truth" World (Sven Stories Press) identifies what a panel of judges considered as the  top-25 most censored stories of 2016/17. The top 5: 

5.  Big Data and Dark Money Behind the 2016 election.  On how extreme right-wing hedge fund manager Robert Mercer (who opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act) provided the critical funding necessary to prop up Donald Trump's "populist" revolution. 

4.  Voter Suppression in the 2016 Presidential Election. On how the impact of Shelby County v. Holder (the 2013 Supreme Court decision that gutted the 1965 Voting Rights Act on a 5-4 vote) in the 2016 elections was never covered seriously by the mainstream press. 

3. Pentagon Paid UK PR Firm For Fake Al-Qaeda Videos. On how the Department of Defense secretly spent hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer money to employ a British firm to create literal fake news in Iraq. 

2. Over Six Trillion Dollars in Unaccountable Army Spending. On how the Pentagon continues to ignore federal law requiring annual audits at the same time Congress continues to vote for dramatic increases in military spending. 

1. Widespread Lead Contamination Threatens Children's Health, and Could Triple Household Water Bills. On the media's failure to create a sense of urgency following a Reuters' investigative report showing that "three thousand neighborhoods across the US had levels of lead poisoning more than double the rates found in Flint, MI at the peak of its contamination crisis."  

The 2017 Tony Awards

Welcome to the annual Tony Awards post. Every year since 2002 I've awarded a Tony to the best media of the previous year. Some years (like last year) there are a range of media recognized, but sometimes I recognize just one person.). I operate from no automatic set of criteria when deciding what media to honor, but in general I am drawn to:

*insightful works that shed light on some important public issue.
*creative works that deserve a wider audience.
*informative works that provide eye-opening education on a difficult topic.
*courageous works that speak truth to power.
*humorous works that skillfully provoke laughter and thought at the same time.
*local works that promote community and civic engagement.

(Just as an aside: Those criteria are in sync with what many of us professors in liberal arts colleges would articulate as the end goal of our respective degree programs. If students can graduate with the ability to be insightful, creative, informative, and courageous; if they can use humor to transcend the world's absurdities--and adopt civic engagement as a core life value--then maybe we are doing something in the academy worth fighting for. Our ability to produce engaged citizens is now much more difficult as political hacks and powerful interests threatened by a critical populace continue to look for ways to undermine any campus mission that does not meet the most narrow possible understanding of "training the workforce.".). 

My list of award recipients is of course incomplete (to mention all the work I admired during the year would require book length treatment) and obviously reflects my own values. I strongly encourage anyone bothered by my list of recipients to create their own. Start your own blog! 

And now the 2017 Tony Award recipients. Drum roll please. 

Best New Local Publication: The Oshkosh Independent Magazine. The Oshkosh Independent was founded by Justin Mitchell in 2015 as an online news source featuring original writings by active community members. Justin has done a remarkable job of keeping the online source updated, informative, and cutting edge. 

The inaugural issue of the Oshkosh Independent Magazine

In 2017 the Oshkosh Independent took a step forward and in November debuted a hard copy magazine. Edited by UW Oshkosh Journalism Professor Miles Maguire, the first issue profiles Greg Pierce, the man who "brought professional basketball back to Oshkosh." The entire magazine is professional in appearance and tone, highly informative, and manages to cheerlead for Oshkosh without being brain dead about it. In his inaugural Editor's Note, Maguire writes, "We need your support--whether it's in the form of an advertisement in these pages or of a subscription for home delivery. Our goal is to make the time you spend with us time well spent. If we can earn your support, then we can keep this caper going." Plans are to release 5 or 6 issues of the magazine per year. Individual subscription rates are reasonable ($22 for one year or $36 for two). For information on how to subscribe, go here. 

(Full disclosure: I write State of the State for the online Oshkosh Independent and may contribute occasionally to the hard copy magazine.). 

Best Local Journalist: Miles Maguire. In 2017 not only did Miles Maguire manage to get a new magazine off the ground, but he also wrote some of the most important local news stories for the online Oshkosh Independent. Local citizens' ability to come to grips with complex and emotional issues like the sale of the Lakeshore golf course, possible corruption involving the UW Oshkosh Foundation, the city's rental inspection program, and many others were enhanced by Miles' reporting. Finally, in addition to regular reporting and editing a new magazine, Maguire in 2017 somehow even had time to publish a fiction novel: check out A Special Detail: The Untold Story of a Reporter's Suspicious Death. You can find excerpts here. 

Miles Maguire had a busy 2017: Professor, Journalist, Editor, and Fiction Writer to name a few roles

Most Impactful Investigative Journalism of the Year: Ronan Farrow's "From Aggressive Overtures to Sexual Assault: Harvey Weinstein's Accusers Tell Their Stories," New Yorker Magazine, October 23, 2017. Without exaggeration, I'd say that you would have to go back to Peter Benenson's classic 1961 article "The Forgotten Prisoners" (which launched a global movement to free political prisoners) to find a written work that had as much positive impact as Farrow's New Yorker piece in 2017. Researched over a 10-month period, Farrow managed to get 13 women to go on the record with horrific tales of sexual assault and harassment at the hands of Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein. The piece helped jump start the #metoo movement which continues to knock down prominent power brokers in a variety of fields. I would not at all be surprised if Farrow earns a Pulitzer Prize for his efforts. Vox.com is keeping a running list of alleged harassers knocked off their perch. 

Investigative Journalism Honorable Mention: The International Business Times "Republican Senators Will Save Millions With Special Real Restate Tax Break."  Early in the deliberations on the Trump Tax Bill, Tennessee Senator Bob Corker announced that he was going to vote against it because he could not in conscience be for anything that increased the deficit. Corker grandstanded on this point for weeks, in the process managing to avoid the brunt of the criticism of thousands of citizens who flooded Washington to urge NO votes on the tax bill. 

As the move to an actual vote on the bill came nearer, Corker suddenly and inexplicably flip-flopped and announced he would vote for it. Journalists Alex Kotch, David Sirota, and Josh Keefe finally discovered why: at the last minute the tax bill writers added a provision that would allow real estate developers like Corker to benefit to the tune of multi millions of dollars from changes to the tax law involving their business. Outrage over the "Corker Kickback" almost succeeded in getting senators to change their votes, but alas it was not to be. 

Corker continues to insist that his vote had nothing to do with his personal finances, but he has offered no compelling explanation as to why he could vote for a bill that clearly violates the deficit principle he grandstanded on for weeks (actually for years.). The same is true for Wisconsin Senator Ron Johnson, by the way. 

Most Insightful #metoo Testimonial: Brit Marling's "Harvey Weinstein and the Economics of Consent," The Atlantic, October 23, 2017.  Brit Marling is an actress, screenwriter, and film producer. In 2014 she had a hotel room encounter with Harvey Weinstein in which she was fortunate to be able to repel his advances and leave. The brilliance of her Atlantic piece is in the way it brings to the forefront what is typically marginalized or ignored in most writing about sexual harassment: The Harvey Weinsteins of the world are in large part the result of an unjust economic system that makes the financially vulnerable prey for the "gatekeepers" like Weinstein who decide quite literally who gets to work and who doesn't. From her conclusion: 

"The real danger inside the present moment . . . would be for us all to separate the alleged deeds of Cosby, Ailes, O’Reilly, or Weinstein from a culture that continues to allow for dramatic imbalances of power. It’s not these bad men. Or that dirty industry. It’s this inhumane economic system of which we are all a part. As producers and as consumers. As storytellers and as listeners. As human beings. That’s a very uncomfortable truth to sit inside. But perhaps discomfort is what’s required to move in the direction of a humane world to which we would all freely give our consent."

Song of the Year: Jessie Reyez' "Gatekeeper."  In 2017 Columbian-Canadian singer-songwriter Jesse Reyez wrote and recorded what may become the anthem of the #metoo movement. The song "Gatekeeper" features Reyez' voice and the voice of a devilish sounding Weinstein figure who says: 

Oh I'm the gatekeeper
Spread your legs
Open up
You could be famous
If you come up anywhere else, I'll erase you
Drink up, bitch, we got champagne by the cases
Don't you know? Don't you know?
We are the gatekeepers
Spread your legs
Open up
You could be famous
You know we're holding the dreams that you're chasing
You know you're supposed to get drunk and get naked

Best Trump and the Press Explainer: Jay Rosen's "Normalizing Trump: An Incredibly Brief Explainer," PressThink Blog, September 17, 2017. NYU Journalism Professor Jay Rosen has been almost alone among press critics in recognizing the true civic emergency brought on by the election of Donald Trump. Last year he won a Tony for his "Winter is Coming," a Twitter thread on what it will be like for the press under Trump that has unfortunately turned out to be frighteningly accurate. 

"Normalizing Trump" needs only 400 words to explain why the mainstream press insists on finding something "normal" in Trump in spite of all evidence to the contrary: 

If nothing the president says can be trusted, reporting what the president says becomes absurd. You can still do it, but it’s hard to respect what you are doing. If the president doesn’t know anything, the solemnity of the presidency becomes a joke. That’s painful. If they can, people flee that kind of pain. In political journalism there is enough room for interpretive maneuver to do just that.

This is “normalization.” This is what “tonight he became president” is about. This is why he’s called “transactional,” why a turn to bipartisanship is right now being test-marketed by headline writers. This is why “deal-making” is said to be afoot when there is barely any evidence of a deal.

What they have to report brings ruin to what they have to respect. So they occasionally revise it into something they can respect: at least a little.

Jay Rosen is one of the few media critics who refuses to minimize the extent of our current civic emergency

Best Comic Explainer of Threats to the Media: John Oliver's "The Trump Presidency" From a November episode of Last Week Tonight. Viewers of John Oliver's program know that he consistently mixes belly laugh jokes with serious, well supported evidence to back up his claims. His November statement on the strategies Donald Trump uses to insulate himself from attacks on his incoherent public statements was one of the most brilliant pieces of political communication criticism I have ever heard. Mirroring much academic criticism on how politicians scapegoat media (but stating his case in a language that everyone can understand), Oliver highlights three strategies used by Trump to deflect attention away from his incoherence: 

1. Delegimitizing the Media (i.e. the "Fake News" canard) 
2. Whataboutism (i.e. answering every criticism by claiming that Obama or Clinton did something worse). 
3. Trolling (i.e. substituting intentional personal attacks against political enemies for any kind of real argument)

These strategies are not unique to Donald Trump. They can be found among hyperpartisans on all sides of the political spectrum, but there is no doubt that they've most infected the so-called conservative movement in America. Once a respected force for ideas in American political life, the conservative movement is now dedicated almost entirely to media delegitimization, whataboutism, and trolling. The one-time Dean of Wisconsin Conservatives, Charlie Sykes, has written an entire book on this topic. We don't know if the Republicans will lose control of the House and Senate in 2018, but if such a loss happens it would at least force a reflection on how their current argumentation runs counter to virtually everything that conservatism should stand for. 

Best Bitcoin Explainer: Doug Henwood, "What's Behind Bitcoin Mania?" Jacobin Magazine Online, December 26, 2017. If you're like me you are probably fascinated with the Bitcoin phenomenon and other "cryptocurrencies" but find yourself unable to explain them and maybe even more confused after reading mainstream articles on the topic. 

Doug Henwood, longtime editor of the Left Business Observer, in my opinion provides a huge public service with his readable piece on Bitcoin. He shows the roots of the cryptocurrency fetish in a particular brand of libertarian economics. Any social good that could come from Bitcoin appears to be outweighed by the interests of some to make huge profits in speculation. For Henwood, the Bitcoin bubble "shows that some people have too much money. Our society — and I mean that broadly, since a lot of the money going into Bitcoin looks to be coming from Asia — has plenty of cash for speculation and not much for human need."

Doug Henwood cuts through the Bitcoin BS

There you have it, the 2017 Tony Award recipients. Honorees receive no actual award, and most of them will never even know that they were so recognized. But so what? The entire point really is to urge my readers to take a look at the works I've mentioned. I hope you find them as provocative and enlightening as I did. 

Let's hope that 2018 is a great year for media that is insightful, creative, informative, courageous, thoughtfully humorous, and civic minded!

Dr. Chris Terry on Net Neutrality and Media Ownership

Critical issues related to media, like net neutrality and media ownership, are often discussed in wonky, technical terms that leave even the most concerned citizen confused and frustrated. When I find myself having difficulty understanding these issues, I call on my former student Chris Terry for clarification and insight. Dr. Terry is an assistant professor of media ethics and law at the University of Minnesota Hubbard School of Journalism & Mass Communication. Chris is an active scholar in the areas of administrative law, media regulations, and the real world impacts of media policy. 

The Federal Communications Commission in the Trump era is on the brink of making major, massive changes to the media regulatory environment. Proposed changes on Internet policy and media ownership, if they do in fact go into place, will impact each and every one of us. In order to get a better grasp of the issues, I emailed Chris some questions. Below are his responses, along with links to much information that can get inquiring minds up to speech. --Tony Palmeri

On December 14th the Federal Communications Commission is scheduled to vote on a proposal to repeal the 2015 "net neutrality" rules. Three part question: (1) What is net neutrality? (2) What do the 2015 rules say? (3) Why does repeal matter? 

Chris Terry Response: 1.) Net Neutrality is a term coined by Columbia Professor Tim Wu to describe how ISPs manage traffics on their networks. In practical terms, it describes a regulatory situation where your internet service provider cannot slow a consumer's access to content (a process known as throttling) or block you from accessing websites.

2.) The 2015 rules reclassified broadband from an “information service” to a “communication service” and in the process moved broadband under the Title II provisions of a common carrier. In simple terms, this makes internet service more like a utility, and essentially treats the internet like a traditional phone connection. Doing so keeps ISPs from blocking or throttling content…as all content under a common carrier status has to be treated equally.

3.) Repeal matters for several reasons, but the removal of the 2015 Title II rules will fundamentally change how internet content is delivered to consumers. Your ISP will have the ability to control what content you can access online, and because those are private companies (rather than state actors) there’s no first amendment right/defense for citizens to access content they choose.

The face of the repeal effort is the Republican Chair of the FCC Ajit Pai. What can you tell us about Mr. Pai? 

Chris Terry Response: Pai has been on the Commission since the Obama administration, and was in the minority when the 2015 rules were implemented by the agency. Donald Trump appointed him chair of the FCC and Congress recently extended his term at the agency. He is a strong and outspoken opponent of net neutrality concepts or regulation.

On December 7th citizens against net neutrality repeal protested outside Verizon stores across the country. Ajit Pai was one Verizon's top lawyer, but are there other reasons for choosing that company as the site for protest? 

Chris Terry Response: Pai’s association with Verizon is probably the primary reason for the protest locations, but it is worth nothing that Verizon has long opposed Net Neutrality, and was the lead plaintiff in the case that ultimately overturned the FCC’s 2010 Net Neutrality rules.

Suppose the FCC does in fact vote to scrap the 2015 net neutrality rules. What kinds of legal challenges will ensue? What are the likely outcomes? 

Chris Terry Response: There will be a variety of legal challenges. There’s some procedural issues with the proceeding, but the most notable is the FCC’s decision to ignore a huge volume of public comments in the rule making docket. There’s also a matter of the agency acting without a change in material facts. Both of these issues are important in legal reviews of administrative agency decision making.

As for the outcomes, it is hard to predict at this point. Both sides claim to have the legal high ground.

There's also been much activity lately on the media ownership front. In November on a 3-2 party line vote, the 3 Republicans on the FCC voted to overturn a ban that's been in place since 1975 that prevented one company from owning newspapers and broadcast stations in one market. What was the rationale for the ban in the first place? The rule changes will be challenged in court, but if they do end up going into effect what will be the practical impact?

Chris Terry Response: The newspaper-broadcast cross ownership ban was a legacy media ownership policy first implemented in 1975 after a long proceeding. The agency has been trying to repeal the rule for many years, but these attempts have been tied to the agency’s ham-handed set backs on media ownership policy. 

Of the media ownership rules the agency voted to change, the NBCO rule is the one most likely to withstand a judicial review because unlike the other rules, the agency actually has some empirical evidence that proposes that the rule no longer works. (Note: I produced some of that empirical evidence)

The ownership case will occur in the 3^rd Circuit Court of Appeals, where the agency has been trying to resolve a remand first issued in 2003 (and again in 2011 and then in 2016) in the Prometheus Radio Project case. I am skeptical the FCC wins, and many of the rule changes will likely be remanded to the agency.

The FCC is also loosening restrictions on one company owning two stations in the same market. Who would benefit from that rule change?

Chris Terry Response: The rule you refer to is the local television ownership rule. The revision in the rule would allow a single owner/operator to possess more than one television station in a market. Several media companies would benefit from the change, but the rule change appears to be on the table to help facilitate the FCC’s approval of the merger between Sinclair and Tribune’s television properties. That merger, while contentious because of Sinclair’s political viewpoints, is not legal under the current rules, hence the attempt to change or alter the rule.

The Trump Administration is going to court to block the proposed AT&T/Time-Warner merger. Why would Trump be opposed to the merger? What's your personal view on the merger? 

Chris Terry Response: I think there’s been a fair amount of either/or in the discussion surrounding the merger. The administration wants AT&T to divest some properties, including CNN. The suggestion was made that President Trump and CNN have an active feud going, and this was one way to get back at the news channel for criticism. While that may be true, there are some issues with the merger involving scale that I think would have made it a hard sell for anti-trust review. As I have said, Trump’s people might be making trouble, but the deal might also be problematic…both things can be true at the same time.

Net neutrality and media ownership issues can be quite wonky. What's the best way for a citizen to stay informed and active on these issues? 

Chris Terry Response: Stay in tune with these issues by following the advocacy groups like the Benton Foundation, Free Press, The Future of Music Coalition or Prometheus Radio Project that are involved heavily in the legal and political fights over these issues.

Some links to audio/essays on both topics:
*Radio Survivor Podcast #118: Making Sense of the FCC's Effort to Kill Net Neutrality
*Radio Survivor: Chris Terry on the FCC's Legacy of Failure  
*Radio Survivor Podcast #115: The Federal Consolidation Commission
*Radio Survivor Podcast #7: The FCC's Legacy of Failure With Media Ownership Policy
*Radio Survivor: Chris Terry 2015 guest column on the FCC's Legacy of Failure and Media Ownership Policy
*Radio Survivor Podcast #33: 20 Years Ago Local Radio Was Crushed  
*Radio Survivor: Chris Terry on Whether the FCC's Legacy of Failure Could Trigger Even More Consolidation
*Radio Survivor Podcast #50: Prometheus v. FCC and a Generation of Gridlock
*Radio Survivor: Chris Terry on the FCC's Media Ownership Legacy-Now With More Failure!
*Radio Survivor Podcast #62: The FCC's Legacy of Failure and CMJ's Uncertain Future  
*Radio Survivor: Happy(?) 21st  Birthday to the Telecommunications Act of 1996
*Radio Survivor Podcast #78: Pai is Trump's FCC Guy

Want to communicate with Chris Terry? Send him an email  crterry@umn.edu  You can also connect with him on Twitter @Christopherterr

Awakening From The Dreamworld's Nightmare

Inspired by social activist Tarana Burke and mobilized by a tweet from actress Alyssa Milano, the #metoo movement to expose and root out sexual harassers from the workplace has--at least in the worlds of entertainment, news media, and politics--revealed that many men who've received public accolades have privately been living a lowlife golden rule of "grope unto others as you would have them grope unto you." Every day seems to come new, credible accusations of rape, inappropriate touching, unwelcome advances, and various other forms of oppressive treatment toward women (and in some cases toward men or toward children). The list of accused power players is long and getting longer. 

The award winning television series "Mad Men" (ran for 7 seasons and 92 episodes between 2007 and 2015), critically acclaimed in part for its blunt portrayal of misogyny and sexism in the workplace of the 1960s, led many viewers to believe mistakenly that such behaviors were things of the past. If anything, the #metoo disclosures demonstrate that workplace rules against sexual harassment put in place as a result of the 1960s/70s feminist movement were not enough to challenge power imbalances that allow certain men to abuse women cavalierly even in the presence of explicit codes of conduct warning the harasser of potential consequences. Perhaps not surprisingly, "Mad Men" creator Matthew Weiner has himself been accused of harassment. 

Few would argue that men are by nature inclined to abuse women. A more likely explanation for the phenomenon is the culture of "toxic masculinity" described in a range of social science and popular literature over many decades. According to this line of thinking, a variety of cultural influences--including media--succeed in normalizing misogyny and sexism. In a toxic male culture, the Harvey Weinstein's of the world view women as a kind of "reward" that their success at playing the role of "man" entitles them to. 

Do certain forms of media especially reinforce toxic masculinity? I teach a course called "The Rhetoric of Rock and Roll." One of the most powerful and most appreciated parts of the course occurs when we watch University of Massachusetts professor Sut Jhally's brilliant "MTV Dreamworlds" video. Jhally is founder and executive director of the Media Education Foundation, an organization that's done great work in showing the connections between gender identity and media. 

Students are always fascinated and disturbed by "Dreamworlds" because, while the film does not claim or show a causal connection between music videos and real world sexual abuse, it does show how the dominant narrative of the videos normalizes sexual aggression. As stated by professor Jhally in Dreamworlds Part 3:

"The images and stories of music videos, and other forms of media culture, do not directly cause men to harm women. But they do dehumanize women and thus make it easier to inflict and justify abusive treatment. They contribute to an environment where men’s violence against women is legitimized and the female victims of this violence are blamed for the brutality that men inflict on them. They encourage an attitude of callous disdain while all the while implying that this is how women want to be treated—that women in fact desire harassment, stalking, and assault."

One thing I've been fascinated by in the current wave of assault allegations is how many of the harassers are men who would have "come of age" in the music video era and/or been high level participants in the video culture. The two best (worst?) examples are filmmaker Brett Ratner and Hip-Hop icon Russell Simmons. 

Before becoming a successful movie maker, Ratner made a name for himself as a music video director. His "classics" include Jessica Simpson's hypersexualized cover of "These Boots Were Made For Walkin'" and L.L. Cool J's sex parable "Pink Cookies in a Plastic Bag Getting Crushed by Buildings."  When you read about actress Olivia Munn's outing of Ratner as a pervert, it becomes clear that he seemed to be quite literally acting out the kind of macho posturing seen in music video:

New to Los Angeles and pursuing an acting career, Munn said she was thrilled when a friend invited her to the set of "After the Sunset.” "I was so excited, because I mean, that's why you come out to California and Hollywood," recalled the actress, 37, whose credits now include HBO's "The Newsroom" and the movies "Magic Mike” and "X-Men: Apocalypse."

Not long after Munn arrived on the Santa Monica set in 2004, she said, she was asked to drop some food off in Ratner's trailer as a favor. She said she was assured that the director would not be there.

Munn entered Ratner’s trailer and quickly placed the food on a table. She said she was startled to find him inside. She tried to make a quick exit, but Ratner implored her not to leave.

"He walked out ... with his belly sticking out, no pants on, shrimp cocktail in one hand and he was furiously masturbating in the other," Munn said. "And before I literally could even figure out where to escape or where to look, he ejaculated."

Munn said she let out a "startled scream" and raced out of the trailer. She said she immediately told the man who had asked her to deliver the food. His reaction? “It wasn't a shock. It wasn't surprise,” Munn recalled. “It was just, ‘Ugh, sorry about that.’"

Writer Jenny Lumet's allegations against Simmons are more disturbing, yet also consistent with the violence against women suggested in much music video. Narrating her 1991 assault,  Lumet writes:

At no time that night did I say: "Russell, I will go home with you." Or "Come home with me." Or "I will have sex with you." Or "I have the desire to have sex with you . . ."

I got into the car with you. The driver began to drive. I assumed you knew where I lived, because you had sent me 250 balloons, but I gave the driver my address on 19th Street and 2nd Avenue.
You said to the driver: "No."
I didn't understand, so I said: "Russell?"
I said, again, to the driver: "19th Street."
Again you said to the driver: "No."
Then the car doors locked. It was loud. The noise made me jump.

She goes on to describe in vivid detail the awful experience of what happened once inside Simmons' apartment. For men completely engrossed in music video culture (Simmons and Rattner have apparently been best buddies for a long time), Olivia Munn and Jenny Lumet "want" this kind of treatment. Were we just talking about Brett Ratner, Russell Simmons and the assorted other prominent abusers mentioned in the press that would be one thing; unfortunately the problem is much more extensive. "Dreamworlds 3" (which I hope professor Jhally updates in the near future) includes powerful footage of "average" men assaulting women in parks, on public streets, and participating in interviews in which they talk about the kinds of misogynist attitudes they hear in their social circles.

Russell Simmons and Brett Ratner: Livin' the Dreamworld?

Obviously the problem of toxic masculinity is much bigger than songs and music videos. However, if you do have substantive interaction with young people, you should engage them with the Boston Public Health Commission's "nutritional impact" scoring sheets for songs and videos. These simple tools are a challenging yet simple way of determining if the main theme of a song/video promotes healthy, respectful gender relations or sexist/misogynist ones.

It's become common to say that the accusations of sex abuse and the resulting terminations of once iconic news anchors, politicians, and entertainers represents some kind of reckoning. I reckon instead that what we are actually experiencing is an awakening from the Dreamworld's Nightmare. Reckonings are necessary to guarantee justice for victims, but by themselves do not change toxic cultures.

For cultural change we need the awakening. What might an awakening mean in the current context?

*In news media it would mean CBS and NBC pledging to hire hundreds of journalists rather than pay multi-millions to "star" anchors like Charlie Rose and Matt Lauer.

*In politics it would mean ending the culture of secrecy that allows the abusers to silence victims with non-disclosure settlements. In Wisconsin, we should push back against the legislature's bipartisan edict that results of the investigations into harassment allegations against state politicians would always be kept secret. (Interesting that this is just about only thing we can get bipartisan agreement on in Madison.).

*In the entertainment industry it would mean not just that we need more women in executive level positions, but we also need an industry commitment to recruit, finance, and promote narratives that reject the gratuitous degradation of women.