September, 16 2009, 02:05pm EDT
Public Interest and Civil Rights Groups Speak Out Against Unfounded Attacks on Mark Lloyd
More than 50 organizations call on the FCC and Congress to support the work of the FCC diversity officer and to correct the record on localism and diversity policies
WASHINGTON
On Wednesday, more than 50 civil rights, public interest and
grassroots organizations sent a letter to the Federal Communications
Commission and congressional leaders supporting Mark Lloyd, the
associate general counsel and chief diversity officer of the FCC, and
the agency's longstanding mission to promote localism, diversity and
competition in the media.
In recent weeks, Mr. Lloyd has been unfairly attacked on cable TV
and radio talk shows with false and misleading information about his
role and responsibilities at the FCC. A respected scholar and public
servant, Lloyd was hired by the agency to expand media opportunities
for women, people of color, small businesses, and those living in rural
areas.
The full text of the letter and a list of signatories is below:
September 16, 2009
To: FCC Commissioners and Congressional Leaders
We, the undersigned, ask you to speak out against the falsehoods and
misinformation that are threatening to derail important work by
Congress and the Federal Communications Commission on media and
technology policies that would benefit all Americans.
In recent weeks, Mark Lloyd, the associate general counsel and chief
diversity officer of the FCC, has come under attack by prominent cable
TV and radio hosts, and even by some members of Congress, who have made
false and misleading claims about his work at the agency.
Mr. Lloyd is a respected historian, an experienced civil rights
leader, and a dedicated public servant. He was hired by the FCC to
"collaborate on the policies and legal framework necessary to expand
opportunities for women, minorities, and small businesses to
participate in the communications marketplace." His important work
should not be hindered by lies and innuendo.
As the leading media policymakers in Washington, we ask you to speak
out against these unfounded attacks, stand publicly behind Mr. Lloyd,
and make clear your commitment to carrying out the core mandate of the
FCC -- as enshrined in the Communications Act of 1934 -- to promote
localism, diversity and competition in the media.
Let us be clear as to what "localism" actually means. Broadcasters
get hundreds of billions of dollars' worth of subsidies in exchange for
a basic commitment to serve the public interest. Broadcasters are
expected to be responsive to their local communities. Localism has been
a cornerstone of broadcast regulation as long as there has been
broadcast regulation. It has nothing to do with censorship or
interference with local programming decisions. Localism is simply about
public service, not about any political viewpoint. Local public service
programming and political talk radio, whether liberal or conservative,
are not mutually exclusive.
Likewise, as the Supreme Court has recognized, "Safeguarding the
public's right to receive a diversity of views and information over the
airwaves is ... an integral component of the FCC's mission." Diversity
of media ownership is a crucial issue, and the agency must address the
fact that women and people of color are vastly underrepresented among
media owners using the public airwaves.
But diversity is also about closing the digital divide: People of
color, the poor, and rural Americans are far less likely to have
high-speed Internet access at home or share in the benefits of
broadband. Diversity is about creating opportunities and broadening
participation; it should go without saying, but it has absolutely
nothing to do with censorship.
The third tenet of the FCC's mission is competition. Those using
their media megaphones to slander and distort the views of Mr. Lloyd
and others may not want competition. But the FCC's job, in its own
words, is "to strengthen the diverse and robust marketplace of ideas
that is essential to our democracy." The overriding goal must be more
speech, not less -- more radio stations, more cable channels and more
Web sites.
At the core of President Obama's media and technology agenda is a
commitment to "diversity in the ownership of broadcast media" and a
pledge to "promote the development of new media outlets for expression
of diverse viewpoints." Now is the time to further that agenda, not to
retreat from it.
We ask you, as leaders on these key media issues, to draw a line in
the sand now, speak out against the unfounded attacks, and redouble
your efforts to enact a policy agenda that will strengthen our economy,
our society and our democracy.
Sincerely,
Josh Silver
Free Press
Wade Henderson
Leadership Conference on Civil Rights
Winnie Stachelberg
Center for American Progress
James Rucker
ColorOfChange.org
Stephanie Jones
National Urban League Policy Institute
Brent Wilkes
League of United Latin American Citizens
Larry Cohen
Communications Workers of America
Alex Nogales
National Hispanic Media Coalition
Bernie Lunzer
The Newspaper Guild
Communications Workers of America
Kimberly Marcus
Rainbow PUSH Coalition's Public Policy Institute
Malkia Cyril
Center for Media Justice
Andrew Schwartzman
Media Access Project
John Kosinski
Writers Guild of America West
Sandy Close
New America Media
Amalia Deloney
Media Action Grassroots Network
Angelo Falcon
National Institute for Latino Policy
Michael Calabrese
New America Foundation
Gigi Sohn
Public Knowledge
Rinku Sen
Applied Research Center
John Clark
National Association of Broadcast Employees and Technicians
Communications Workers of America
Graciela Sanchez
Esperanza Peace and Justice Center
Mimi Pickering
Appalshop
Steven Renderos
Main Street Project
Hal Ponder
American Federation of Musicians
Tracy Rosenberg
Media Alliance
Terry O'Neill
National Organization for Women
Roger Hickey
Campaign for America's Future
Andrea Quijada
New Mexico Media Literacy Project
Jonathan Lawson
Reclaim the Media
DeAnne Cuellar
Texas Media Empowerment Project
Chris Rabb
Afro-Netizen
Loris Ann Taylor
Lisa Fager
Bediako
Industry Ears
O. Ricardo Pimentel
National Association of Hispanic Journalists
Todd Wolfson
Media Mobilizing Project
Erica Williams
Campus Progress
Gary Flowers
Black Leadership Forum
Eva Paterson
Equal Justice Society
Rev. Lennox Yearwood, Jr
Hip Hop Caucus
Cheryl Contee
Jack and Jill Politics
Dr. E. Faye Williams
National Congress of Black Women
Emily Sheketoff
American Library Association
Ari Rabin-Havt
Media Matters Action Network
Kathryn Galan
National Association of Latino Independent Producers
Roberto Lovato
Presente
Joshua Breitbart
People's Production House
Karen Bond
National Black Coalition for Media Justice
Tracy Van Slyke
Media Consortium
Shireen Mitchell
Digital Sisters, Inc
Media and Technology Task Force
National Council of Women's Organizations
Ariel Dougherty
Media Equity Collaborative
Free Press was created to give people a voice in the crucial decisions that shape our media. We believe that positive social change, racial justice and meaningful engagement in public life require equitable access to technology, diverse and independent ownership of media platforms, and journalism that holds leaders accountable and tells people what's actually happening in their communities.
(202) 265-1490LATEST NEWS
World Bank Pumping Billions More Into Fossil Fuels Than Publicly Known: Study
Exploiting a "trade finance" loophole, the bank dumped an estimated $3.7 billion into oil and gas projects in 2022.
Sep 12, 2023
An analysis released Tuesday by the German nonprofit Urgewald estimated that the World Bank spent nearly $4 billion on fossil fuel financing last year, when it was under the leadership of a climate denier nominated by former U.S. President Donald Trump.
The World Bank pledged in 2017 to end financing for upstream oil and gas—with narrow exceptions—after 2019. But Urgewald observed in its new report that the World Bank's pledge applied only to direct finance, allowing the powerful institution to funnel cash to oil and gas projects through "trade finance" dished out by its private-sector arm, the International Finance Corporation (IFC).
"Despite trade finance's vast and still-growing share of the IFC’s budget, over 70% of it is given out in secrecy," Urgewald noted. "The types of goods and businesses it is funding are not even reported to the World Bank's shareholders, i.e., our governments. The public has a right to know where all this money is going."
Citing the IFC's "severe lack of transparency," Urgewald stressed that it was only able to "formulate an estimate" for oil and gas transactions. The group calculated that the World Bank spent roughly $3.7 billion on oil and gas trade finance in 2022.
"This would more than triple the current annual level of fossil fuel finance attributed to the World Bank and cast serious doubts on Bank claims of alignment with the Paris Climate Agreement," Urgewald's Heike Meinhardt said in a statement.
"The easiest way for a big oil company or coal operation to escape attention surrounding public assistance is to cloak it in trade finance."
The World Bank has long been accused of reneging on its climate commitments. A report released last year by Big Shift Global estimated that the World Bank has spent nearly $15 billion supporting fossil fuels since the adoption of the Paris Climate Agreement in 2015.
Late last year, former World Bank President David Malpass sparked global outrage by saying he's not sure whether he accepts the scientific consensus that climate change is caused by the burning of fossil fuels, further validating climate activists' longstanding calls for systemic reforms at the bank.
"I don't know," Malpass said in response to a reporter's question about his views on climate change. "I'm not a scientist."
The comments prompted widespread calls for Malpass to step down, which he did in June. Current World Bank President Ajay Banga, who U.S. President Joe Biden nominated to replace Malpass, is a former private equity executive who has worked for Nestlé, PepsiCo, and Citibank.
Urgewald warned in its report Tuesday that the World Bank will remain a major source of funding for the fossil fuel industry until it enacts reforms that prevent the IFC from bolstering oil and gas under the guise of "trade finance."
"The easiest way for a big oil company or coal operation to escape attention surrounding public assistance is to cloak it in trade finance," the group said. "It is a huge loophole that must be closed and evaluated through public disclosure."
Urgewald added that "there is no doubt" the World Bank and IFC "are going to deny" its findings and "claim the figures are inaccurate."
That's exactly what an IFC spokesperson did on Tuesday, tellingThe Guardian that "Urgewald's report contains serious factual inaccuracies and grossly overstates IFC's support for fossil fuels."
"IFC regularly reports accurate and timely project information through various channels," the spokesperson added.
Urgewald disputed that narrative in its report, asserting that the "continued secrecy surrounding trade finance makes it impossible to determine how much fossil fuel business the IFC is ultimately facilitating and whether the World Bank is actually aligned with the goals of the Paris Climate Agreement."
"An exorbitant amount of IFC money, i.e., more than half its budget, is streaming through banks without any oversight by the [World Bank Board of Directors], without any opportunity for public scrutiny, without any accountability," the group said.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Fetterman Rips Automakers for Handing CEOs Huge Pay Packages While Skimping on Workers
"If the Big Three can find money in the couch cushions to bump executive pay by 40% over the past few years, they sure as hell can find the money to give hard-earned raises to the people who actually build the cars and trucks."
Sep 12, 2023
With a potential strike just two days away, Democratic U.S. Sen. John Fetterman ripped the Big Three car manufacturers on Monday for being unreasonable in high-stakes contract negotiations with the United Auto Workers, arguing the companies' executive compensation packages make clear that they have plenty of resources to pay workers fairly.
"If the Big Three can find money in the couch cushions to bump executive pay by 40% over the past few years, they sure as hell can find the money to give hard-earned raises to the people who actually build the cars and trucks Pennsylvanians drive," Fetterman said in a statement.
General Motors CEO Mary Barra, the highest-paid Big Three CEO, took home nearly $29 million in total compensation last year.
Ford chief executive Jim Farley received total compensation of almost $21 million in 2022, while Stellantis CEO Carlos Tavares received nearly $25 million.
"It is time for the Big Three to come to the table in good faith and work with UAW to strike a fair deal," Fetterman said Monday. "UAW is ready, but these companies are being completely unserious."
The UAW's contracts with General Motors, Ford, and Stellantis are set to expire on Thursday, just before midnight. An overwhelming majority of participating UAW members voted late last month to authorize a strike if management doesn't agree to a fair contract by September 14, and recent polling shows the roughly 146,000 autoworkers would have a majority of the U.S. public on their side if they do strike.
"CEO pay went up 40%. No one said a word. No one had any complaints about that. But now, God forbid that workers actually ask for their fair share."
In an appearance on CNN late Monday, UAW president Shawn Fain said that while the two sides have "made some progress," there's still "a long way to go" and "a lot of issues" to resolve.
Ford has been prepping for a possible strike by readying non-union salaried employees to staff key parts distribution centers.
"Stellantis has been making its own preparations to weather a strike by stockpiling parts at a facility in Belvidere, Illinois, near its recently shuttered Belvidere Assembly Plant," Labor Notesreported Monday. "The company has been staffing the warehouse with newly hired non-union workers—which Stellantis is trying to keep secret because there are 1,300 laid-off UAW members from the assembly plant who still live in the area."
The UAW rejected initial contract proposals from GM, Ford, and Stellantis as "insulting" and "deeply unfair." GM and Ford offered wage increases of 10% and 9% respectively over four years, and Stellantis proposed a 14.5% wage hike with no cost-of-living adjustment.
UAW initially called for a 46% wage increase for autoworkers along with other demands, from an end to tiered compensation structures that harm newer workers to a 32-hour workweek with 40 hours of pay.
The union has since lowered its wage-hike demand to 36% over four years, according toBloomberg. "It is now asking for a series of increases over nearly five years that would start with an 18% boost and then alternate between 5% and 4% annually over the subsequent years of the contract," the outlet reported, citing unnamed people familiar with the UAW's offer.
Autoworkers' average hourly wages in the U.S. have fallen by 30% over the past two decades, and the UAW has pointed to major sacrifices autoworkers made during the industry's crisis in the late 2000s as a reason for its ambitious contract demands. The union agreed to give up retiree healthcare for new hires and cost-of-living adjustments for all members as automakers pushed for a federal bailout in 2008.
"It's amazing to me how analysts, when workers ask for their fair share, it's always the end of the world," Fain told CNN's Jake Tapper on Monday. "CEO pay went up 40%. No one said a word. No one had any complaints about that. But now, God forbid that workers actually ask for their fair share of equity in the fruits of the labor and the product they produce."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Demands Recusal of Judge Chutkan in Federal Jan. 6 Case for 'Doing Her Job'
Legal experts dismissed the move, which comes after the judge rejected an attempt by the GOP ex-president and current presidential candidate to delay the trial until 2026, after the 2024 election.
Sep 11, 2023
Former U.S. President Donald Trump's legal team on Monday asked the judge overseeing his federal election interference case—stemming from his efforts to overturn the 2020 results and him provoking the January 6, 2021 insurrection—to recuse herself, citing comments she made during cases involving some of his supporters who stormed the Capitol.
"The recusal motion was a risky gambit by Mr. Trump's legal team given that the judge, Tanya S. Chutkan, will have the initial say about whether or not to grant it," The New York Timesnoted. "Mr. Trump's lawyers have tried this strategy before, attempting—and failing—to have the judge overseeing his state felony trial in Manhattan step aside."
Along with those two cases, Trump faces an election interference case in Georgia and second federal case that, like the one overseen by Chutkan, is spearheaded by Special Counsel Jack Smith due to his presidential campaign. Trump remains the front-runner in the GOP's 2024 primary race despite being indicted four times this year.
A grand jury indicted Trump in the federal election case early last month, hitting him with what one watchdog group called his "most significant charges yet." His attorneys pushed for a 2026 trial—well after next year's election—but Chutkan, an appointee of former President Barack Obama who was randomly assigned to the case, scheduled it for March 4, 2024.
"Judge Chutkan has, in connection with other cases, suggested that President Trump should be prosecuted and imprisoned. Such statements, made before this case began and without due process, are inherently disqualifying," Trump's lawyers argued in the Monday motion. "Although Judge Chutkan may genuinely intend to give President Trump a fair trial—and may believe that she can do so—her public statements unavoidably taint these proceedings, regardless of outcome."
The motion points out that during a December 2021 hearing for Robert Palmer, Chutkan said: "Mr. Palmer—you have made a very good point, one that has been made before—that the people who exhorted you and encouraged you and rallied you to go and take action and to fight have not been charged... So you have a point, that the people who may be the people who planned this and funded it and encouraged it haven’t been charged, but that’s not a reason for you to get a lower sentence."
The filing adds that during an October 2022, the judge told another defendant, Christine Priola:
This was nothing less than an attempt to violently overthrow the government, the legally, lawfully, peacefully elected government by individuals who were mad that their guy lost. I see the videotapes. I see the footage of the flags and the signs that people were carrying and the hats they were wearing and the garb. And the people who mobbed that Capitol were there in fealty, in loyalty, to one man—not to the Constitution, of which most of the people who come before me seem woefully ignorant; not to the ideals of this country; and not to the principles of democracy. It's a blind loyalty to one person who, by the way, remains free to this day.
Responding to Trump's motion on social media, University of Alabama law professor Joyce Vance, who is also an NBC News and MSNBC legal analyst, said Monday that it is "unsurprising that he would do this" but it "seems unlikely to succeed."
"The case for refusing Judge [Aileen] Cannon in Florida would be far stronger and so far, the [government] has not chosen to bring it," Vance added of the Trump appointee overseeing the other federal case, which involves classified documents.
Stephen Gillers, a legal ethics professor at New York University School of Law, reached a similar conclusion.
"I understand why Trump would like another judge, and I understand why Trump would like another venue," Gillers told The Washington Post, "but nothing I've heard—including the fact that Judge Chutkan has sentenced harshly other January 6 defendants—would warrant a recusal."
"Things such as what is said or done within the four corners of a case before her as a judge cannot be a basis for recusal because she's doing her job," he continued. "That's what judges do."
Some legal scholars and advocacy groups argue that regardless of the results of the four criminal cases, the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution disqualifies Trump from holding office again because he incited an insurrection. A watchdog and lawyers for six Republican and unaffiliated Colorado voters filed a related lawsuit last week.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular
Independent, nonprofit journalism needs your help.
Please Pitch In
Today!
Today!