The George Soros-backed “Free Press” media organization claims it is interested in ending back room deals involving government and media lobbyists.
As it declares on its web site,”For too long, media policy has been made behind closed doors in the public’s name but without our involvement or consent.”
However, in a series of newly released e-mails between the Free Press and the U.S. Federal Commuications Commission, it appears that it is the Free Press that’s working the back rooms.
Under the Freedom of Information Act the non-profit Judicial Watch obtained a number of private communications between the media group and the FCC over the policy of advancing “net neutrality,” a proposal to regulate the Internet. The Free Press is an enthusiastic supporter of net neutrality.
In the e-mails it’s clear the Free Press is acting as the FCC’s PR firm, lobbyist and speaker’s bureau all rolled up in one. As the e-mails show, the news outlet is very chummy with the FCC executive staff, advising and strategizing over the best ways to promote net neutrality. Judicial Watch reports:
On November 2, 2010, Free Press Associate Outreach Director Misty Perez Truedson sent an email to John Giusti, Chief of Staff to FCC Commissioner Michael Copps asking if Copps would write an op-ed for the Albuquerque Journal in advance of a November 16 hearing on Internet access: “Would Commissioner Copps be interested in drafting an Op-ed in advance of the hearing? It’s a great way to get the word out and to spark conversations in advance of the event,” Truedson wrote. “We’re working on the op ed,” Giusti wrote back on November 9.
The documents also include a series of emails sent to set up meetings between Copps and former Free Press President John Silver. “We are starting to get a good sense of how we’d like to proceed during the next three tricky months on NN [net neutrality]…” Silver wrote in the same October 8, 2010, email: “I think it may make sense for us to get together next week when I’m in town.” The documents also include a written summary of a phone call between Silver and Copps on November 28, 2010, just prior to the FCC vote in December: “Silver emphasized that a strong net neutrality rule is critical to preserving the Internet as a vibrant forum for speech, commerce, innovation and cultural expression…” the summary noted.
One set of documents includes correspondence between FCC Special Counsel David Tannenbaum and Free Press Policy Director Ben Scott establishing lists of speakers for FCC “internet workshops.” Among the speakers proposed by Scott: “Joe Respars (ran online activism for the Obama campaign – he’s at Blue State Digital);” “Alex Nogales – National Hispanic Media Coalition;” “Jay Stanley – ACLU;” and “Clothilde de Coz [redacted] Reporters without Borders.”
Richard Pollock is the Washington, D.C., editor for PJ Media and the Washington bureau chief of PJTV.
I think a Louis Renault award is applicable here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1DEG6BWgp0
I’m sure the lack of coverage of corporate influence on policy-making was accidental. Certainly the $70-odd Million that the telecom industry spent lobbying Congress in 2009 (not to mention campaign donations and indirect funding) is at least as grave a concern for you as a nonprofit lobbying in accordance with the public’s interest (the same public that accounts for more than 50% of FreePress’s funding). Because the public has come to expect nothing less than the utmost regard for intellectual integrity that is PajamasMed… I’m sorry, I can’t even type that, it’s just so absurd. All the best with your red-baiting.
The term “public’s interest” is disingenuous. I remember bringing this point up against Ralph Nader, back when he was running for president. Public Interest Groups are the same as Special Interest Groups, and both can get a good portion of their money from the public. Both want to influence policy to benefit their group. Both have solutions that could benefit the public, and simultaneously harm the public (the two concepts are not mutually exclusive). Net neutrality advocates say that the rules they advocate will increase access to the internet so we can surf porn, watch movies and TV shows, and game with no slow downs of content. However, we’ll end up paying more money for access – thereby decreasing the number of people who can access it – and have less money to maintain a Brazzers membership, subscribe to Netflix, or add 6000 Microsoft Points.
If the only thing that “Net Neutrality” means is that bandwidth providers are not allowed to rate or total limit 3rd party packets–that they must be common carriers of 3rd party packets–then that is a good thing.
I doubt if that is what Soros means.
Couple this Net Neutrality scam with the fact that the digital free over the air t v signals are soo unstable and so very unreliable…. they are very close to being able to control all venue’s of news to the populace with out us realising its not just signal drift or cable services down etc.