All Digitocracy

Media & Diversity

Willful Blindness: How The Media’s Ignorance Of Racial Issues Impacts Police Coverage, Part Three

by

protest1By JOSEPH TORRES

FreePress.net

Editor’s note: AllDigitocracy is highlighting police beat reporting in light of the multiple stories in the news of late regarding the deaths of unarmed black men at the hands of police and the way news organizations have covered these stories. This three-part presentation of “Willful Blindness”  is a continuation of that series.

Parts One and Two of “Willful Blindness” can be found here and here.

The Fight for the Open Internet

It’s no accident that the voices of marginalized communities can be heard online. Throughout history, a series of public policy decisions enabled the Internet to develop as a decentralized communications network largely free of corporate and government censorship.

Thanks to this open architecture, the Internet has allowed marginalized communities to bypass traditional media and speak for themselves without needing to first seek permission from corporate gatekeepers. In fact, the Internet has provided a new generation of activists with the digital oxygen they need to help breathe life into their burgeoning movements.

But big Internet service providers like AT&T, Comcast and Verizon have long tried to kill Net Neutrality, the principle that requires ISPs to treat all online traffic equally. These companies want the power to censor, interfere with and discriminate against Web traffic, content and services. They want an online world where the rich pay more to ensure their content travels in the digital fast lane while the rest of us are relegated to the slow lane. This would create a separate and unequal Internet — making it harder for people of color to make their voices heard.

“Whether it’s the Movement for Black Lives, the Fight for $15, or an immigrant rights movement declaring ‘not one more,’ powerful 21st-century social justice movements require powerful communications platforms,” says Malkia Cyril, the executive director of the Center for Media Justice. “Decentralized platforms lead to diverse leadership where every voice can speak and be heard. Democratic platforms allow decisions to be made and strategies to align across geography and issue. Non-discriminatory platforms reduce the power of gatekeepers, and increase the power of those historically excluded. That’s why I fight to protect the Internet, not simply because of what it is, but because of what it enables.”

All of this would go away without Net Neutrality. And in 2014, it appeared the big ISPs were going to get their way. These companies had convinced FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler, a former top lobbyist for the cable and wireless industries, to propose rules that would allow for Internet fast and slow lanes. It took a massive organizing effort to change Chairman Wheeler’s mind. And the voices of communities of color were critical to this effort.

The debate over Net Neutrality occurred at a pivotal moment. A new generation of racial justice activists representing the community’s growing political and moral consciousness demanded that the FCC protect the open Internet. Many civil rights groups and lawmakers of color joined this effort and made their voices heard.

And over the past five years, the Center for Media Justice, ColorOfChange.org, Free Press and the National Hispanic Media Coalition have worked as part of a coalition — now called Voices for Internet Freedom — to fight for the digital rights of communities of color. Groups like 18MillionRising and Presente.org have also been critical partners in advancing this goal.

The coalition ensured that the new generation of racial justice leaders would have their voices heard during the open Internet debate. “It is because of Net Neutrality rules that the Internet is the only communication channel left where Black voices can speak and be heard, produce and consume, on our own terms,” Patrisse Cullors, co-creator of Black Lives Matter, wrote last December in The Hill.

For years, the big phone and cable companies have relied on lawmakers of color and several legacy civil rights groups to oppose any efforts that would ban ISPs from discriminating online. These companies claimed that Net Neutrality would broaden the digital divide. But this new group of leaders challenged that narrative.

In January 2015, a Center for Media Justice-led delegation of Black racial justice leaders met with members of the Congressional Black Caucus and the FCC to discuss why Net Neutrality is essential to the fight against police brutality. The delegation included activists from Ferguson and Opal Tometi, a co-creator of Black Lives Matter.

During a meeting with Rep. John Lewis, the civil rights icon pledged his continued support for Net Neutrality. He validated that the group stood on the right side of history when he said the civil rights movement would have accomplished even more had an open Internet existed in the 1960s.

A few weeks later, the National Hispanic Media Coalition and Presente.org, in partnership with the Center for Media Justice, brought a delegation of Black, Latino, Asian American and Native American activists to meet with key lawmakers of color and take part in a standing-room-only briefing with congressional staffers on Net Neutrality and racial justice.

By the time the FCC was gearing up for its vote, more than 100 racial justice and civil rights groups had signed a letter calling on the agency to adopt strong and enforceable Net Neutrality rules. This collective effort not only inspired members of Congress to speak out, but it kept many lawmakers of color who were otherwise inclined to support the positions of the big phone and cable companies from opposing Net Neutrality — despite the financial contributions they receive from the industry.

By the time the FCC was set to vote, a broad coalition of public interest and racial justice groups had galvanized millions of people — not to mention President Barack Obama — to call on the FCC to pass rules that would give the agency the legal authority to enforce real Net Neutrality. And by February 2015, Chairman Wheeler had abandoned his initial industry-friendly proposal in favor of the strongest Net Neutrality rules in the agency’s history.

“We listened. We learned. And we adjusted our approach based on the public record,” said Wheeler. “In the process we saw a graphic example of why open and unfettered communications are essential to freedom of expression in the 21st century.”

In Our Lifetime?

While we should celebrate this victory, the fight isn’t over. The ISPs will never stop trying to kill the open Internet. In fact, they’re suing the FCC to get the rules thrown out in court and lobbying to pass legislation in Congress to overturn the FCC’s decision.

The struggle continues. It always does.

But for now, the open Internet lives. And it enables racial justice leaders to speak for themselves and be heard. The ability to speak freely can be a revolutionary act that informs, inspires and influences a new generation of leaders to fight to prevent history from repeating itself in the effort to build a more just and equitable society.

Perhaps this growing political pressure will increase the presence and influence of people of color in the media industry. And perhaps it will change the media’s historical narrative when it comes to covering communities of color.

“If the Internet stays a place where you can share your voice without impediments or limits then the discourse will eventually change,” says Julio Ricardo Varela, founder of Latino Rebels. “It might not change in our lifetime, it might not change in my kids’ lifetime or my grandkids’ lifetime, but it will change.”

Joe_finalJoseph Torres writes frequently on media and Internet issues and is the co-author of the New York Times bestseller News for All the People: The Epic Story of Race and the American Media. Joseph also serves on the board of directors of the Center for Media Justice and the National Association of Latino Independent Producers. Before joining Free Press, he worked as deputy director of the National Association of Hispanic Journalists and was a journalist for several years. He earned a degree in communications from the College of Staten Island. Follow him on Twitter @JosephATorres.

A Neutral Guide To Net Neutrality

by

Net Neutrality: What it is, who’s for it, who’s against it, and what’s at stake

By STEPHANIE CRETS

net-neutrality graphic

As the FCC gears up to vote on new rules that will govern how the Internet works next month, we thought there’s no better time than now to publish a primer on net neutrality.

Net Neutrality has been the topic of intense conversation for months. Yet there’s still confusion about what it is and why content providers, and consumers alike, should care. We’ve put together the overview below to help you understand the issues and players that influence the way we use the Internet daily for business, research, entertainment, and social activities.

Net Neutrality Overview

Net Neutrality refers to the idea that all data on the Internet should be treated equally by Internet Service Providers (ISPs). For most of the Internet’s history, ISPs generally did not distinguish between the various types of content that flow through their networks, whether web pages, email, or other forms of information. In the 1990s and early 2000s, the few ISPs that tried to block certain types of data faced strong opposition from consumers, tech companies, and regulators.

With the rise of bandwidth-heavy services such as Netflix, ISPs have increasingly sought to sell more bandwidth, or “fast lanes,” to companies willing to pay for it. Other traffic would move through their networks at a slower pace.

An FCC History of Net Neutrality

Federal Communications Commissioners who will decide the future of the Internet.

The term “Network Neutrality” (later shortened to Net Neutrality) was coined by legal scholar Tim Wu in a 2003 study of potential ways to regulate the Internet. Over the last decade, the FCC has tried multiple times to enforce “guiding principles” in support of Net Neutrality.

In 2007, the FCC ruled that Comcast had illegally throttled its users’ service, but the ruling was struck down by the D.C. Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals.[1] In 2010, the FCC passed a regulatory order intended “to preserve the Internet as an open platform for innovation, investment, job creation, economic growth, competition, and free expression.”[2] Verizon Communications challenged the new rules in court, and in January 2014, the D.C. Circuit again struck down the FCC’s ruling.[3]

In response to the most recent ruling, the FCC proposed another rulemaking and solicited public comments through July 15, 2014, with a reply comment period through September 10, 2014. During that period, members of the public can comment by visiting www.fcc.gov/comment or emailing openinternet@fcc.gov.[4]

 

Democratic lawmakers John Lewis and Elizabeth Warren support tightening Internet regulations.

Democratic lawmakers John Lewis and Elizabeth Warren view the Internet as a public utility, more like electricity than cable TV.

Arguments for Net Neutrality

Net Neutrality proponents argue that the Internet should provide a “level playing field” by codifying an open-access model of the Internet in which all data is treated equally. In support of Net Neutrality, Tim Berners-Lee, inventor of the World Wide Web, has stated, “Freedom of communication with any application to any party is the fundamental social basis of the Internet, and now is the basis of the society we’ve built on the Internet.”[5]

Responding to opposition against government regulation, supporters of Net Neutrality argue that regulation is necessary to preserve the previously voluntary open access. Some have equated such regulation as similar to the First Amendment, and Senator Al Franken has called Net Neutrality “the most important free speech issue of our time.”[6]

Replying to concerns about interference with the free market, Net Neutrality advocates argue that 96% of Americans have access to two or fewer wired broadband providers,[7] which means that there is very little ISP competition now. Network Neutrality rules, they contend, would prevent ISPs from suppressing competitors and inhibiting startup companies such as YouTube, which started as a small company competing with Google Video before Google bought it in 2006.

 

Civil rights leaders Jesse Jackson and Marc Morial believe treating the Internet as a public utility is an extreme approach.

Civil rights leaders Jesse Jackson and Marc Morial believe treating the Internet as a public utility is an extreme approach that can harm diversity.

Arguments Against Net Neutrality

Opponents of Net Neutrality regulation argue that ISPs should be allowed to charge more for bandwidth-intensive services that heavily use the Internet’s infrastructure. Offering tiered service, they add, will allow consumers to receive faster traffic for high-demand services, such as multimedia streaming, video conferencing, and cloud-based IT.

Other opponents of Net Neutrality rules argue from a libertarian perspective, asserting that the government should refrain from interfering with the Internet. Some have likened regulation of an open Internet to the institution of common carrier locomotive transportation laws in the late 19th century, which they claim subsequently raised prices and degraded service.[8] Christopher Yoo, a legal professor at the University of Pennsylvania, has argued that common carrier regulation has historically been poorly implemented, and similar rules should be avoided with respect to the Internet.[9]

In response to claims that tiered service will hinder innovation and discourage competition, Net Neutrality opponents claim that regulations will suppress creative, free-market solutions that might otherwise emerge.

The Future of Net Neutrality

While the FCC decides how we will continue using the Internet in our personal, professional and political lives, companies are wrangling and lobbying over how the rules will be written.

Arguments supporting and in opposition to Net Neutrality proceed in a variety of places — online, through traditional media, in political venues, and elsewhere. People on each side position themselves as champions of freedom and innovation, while companies and organizations lobby rulemakers in Washington, D.C..

Meanwhile, companies continue wrangling over how high-bandwidth services should be delivered over the Internet. In February, Netflix saw a slowdown in its service as it tried to negotiate connection fees with broadband providers such as Verizon and Comcast,[10] an event later used by Net Neutrality proponents as an example of ISPs limiting other companies’ service to get what they want — although others have argued that the event had nothing to do with Net Neutrality.[11] Net Neutrality supporters have noted that in 2013, Comcast spent more than $18 million on lobbying efforts, more than any other single company except defense contractor Northrop Grummon.[12]

In April 2014, a set of rules proposed by FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler, a former lobbyist for cable and wireless companies, indicated that the FCC may abandon its previous Net Neutrality position and consider letting ISPs provide tiered service. Wheeler denied that the proposed rules changed the FCC’s position,[13] but more than 100 companies supporting Net Neutrality wrote a letter to the chairman in May criticizing the proposed rules.[14]

Whatever rules the FCC eventually establishes, they will have a great impact on how we continue to use the Internet in our personal, professional, and political lives. Understanding the issues and players involved is important to anticipating the how clients, service providers and even competitors will respond.

 

Footnotes:

1. www.eff.org/files/Comcast%20v%20FCC%20(DC%20Cir%202010).pdf
2. apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-201A1.pdf
3. ://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/01/how-the-fcc-screwed-up-its-chance-to-make-isp-blocking-illegal/
4. ://www.fcc.gov/document/fact-sheet-protecting-and-promoting-open-internet
5. www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jev2Um-4_TQ#t=11
6. ://www.huffingtonpost.com/al-franken/the-most-important-free-s_b_798984.html
7. ://www.broadband.gov/plan/4-broadband-competition-and-innovation-policy/
8. ://www.cato.org/blog/fccs-net-neutrality-rules
9. ://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2370068
10. ://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB100014240527023048997045793912 23249896550
11. ://www.cnet.com/news/comcast-vs-netflix-is-this-really-about-net-neutrality/
12. www.opensecrets.org/lobby/top.php?showYear=2013&indexType=s
13. ://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/24/technology/fcc-new-net-neutrality-rules.html?_r=0
14. ://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB100014240527023037013045795483 64154205126

 

 Stephanie CretsStephanie Crets blogs for SingleHop.com where this post first appeared. It is re-published here with permission from SingleHop.

It’s Obama vs. Civil Rights Groups Over Net Neutrality

by

Sometimes friends disagree

President Obama asked the FCC this week to tighten Internet regulations.

President Obama asked the FCC this week to tighten Internet regulations.

President Obama came out this week in full support of net neutrality rules, announcing that a free and open Internet was as critical to Americans’ lives as electricity and should be regulated like those utilities to protect consumers. Obama’s statement paves the way for the Federal Communications Commission to adopt tighter rules to prevent broadband companies from blocking or intentionally slowing down legal content and from allowing content providers to pay for a fast lane to reach consumers.

This approach also puts Obama at odds with several civil rights groups, including the National Urban League, the Minority Media and Telecommunications Council and Jesse Jackson’s Rainbow/PUSH Coalition. The civil rights groups believe treating wired and wireless broadband service could slow broadband adoption, lead to increased prices and choke innovation. Republicans who are against the president’s net neutrality vision are now citing opposition by the civil rights groups, including the NAACP, as a reason the FCC should reject stricter regulations.

FCC chairman Tom Wheeler has been working on plans to protect the open Internet. At stake is whether the Internet will be treated like a public utility, like electricity, or like a more costly luxury, such as cable television. Several civil rights groups, however, wanted to leave the door open, allowing internet service providers to report any practices that would change consumers’ and content providers’ “relationship” with networks. This would give the FCC the ability to intervene on a case-by-case basis.

“This approach to the Internet, first chartered with bipartisan support during the Clinton Administration, has created 945,000 jobs for workers of color in the broadband sector and an overall “app economy” that supports another 750,000 jobs a year,” wrote Marc H. Morial, president and CEO of the National Urban League, wrote in a Oct. 15 blog post on thehill.com. Morial and others are calling for the FCC to use its existing authority to regulate the internet, and added treating it like a public utility is an “extreme approach.”

Morial’s position — and that of his social justice allies — is more in line with what big telecom companies want, prompting net neutrality activists to accuse the civil rights groups, including the Urban League, of selling out.

Marc Morial, president and CEO of the National Urban League, which claims Obama's approach to protecting the internet could harm diversity and innovation.

Marc Morial, president and CEO of the National Urban League, which claims Obama’s approach to protecting the internet could harm diversity and innovation.

“In its filings with the FCC, the National Urban League acknowledges its close working and philanthropic relationships with the biggest phone and cable companies. (On its own site, Comcast touts its partnership with the National Urban League and notes that it’s given the group $12 million in free airtime.) The National Urban League, its local chapters, and some traditional civil rights groups have repeatedly cited the philanthropic donations made by the big ISPs as a reason the government should approve mega-merger after mega-merger. Many groups are making this argument in the pending Comcast-Time Warner Cable and AT&T-DIRECTV deals,” wrote Craig Aaron and Joseph Torres for Freepress.net. “So maybe it shouldn’t come as a surprise that some civil rights groups are aligned with the policy positions these corporations are pursuing, including opposing strong and enforceable Net Neutrality rules.”

It should be noted that not all civil rights groups oppose the president’s plan. Color of Change, which advocates on behalf of black Americans, supports the public utility option. So do civil rights icons including John Lewis and John Conyers, both members of the U.S. House of Representatives. But when it comes to net neutrality, legacy groups like the NAACP, Rainbow/PUSH, MMTC, the Urban League and the president are on opposite sides of the spectrum (apologies for the pun). Sometimes friends disagree. But this isn’t just a difference in opinion. What the FCC decides will impact the way journalists and other content producers provide and deliver information, and it will also impact how our audiences consume our products. Besides, when it comes to politics, there’s no such thing as permanent friends, or permanent enemies. Case in point, even conservatives back the president’s plan.

Obama has other pals anyway. Within minutes of the president’s video release of his message expressing support for treating the Internet like a public utility, lawmakers across the country began tweeting their support.