AMY GOODMAN: You are listening to Democracy Now! The War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman.

From the National Rifle Association to the antiwar group CodePink, organizations around the country are speaking out against media consolidation. On June 2nd, the FCC is poised to overhaul decades-old rules governing media ownership, allowing for further consolidation. Today we’re going to hear the latest gathering of journalistic organizations and other groups opposed to deregulation of media ownership rules. This has gotten almost no mainstream media attention, the number of groups and individuals who have spoken out against the FCC’s June 2nd vote. This gathering took place on May 27th in Washington, D.C.

JONATHAN ADELSTEIN: We’re on the eve of the most sweeping and potentially destructive overhaul of the FCC’s media rules in the history of American broadcasting. At this dangerous time, it really feels good to be in a room with this wide array of a group, such a cross-section of America that’s represented here today by all of you who took the time to attend [inaudible] —

AMY GOODMAN: This is dissident FCC Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein.

JONATHAN ADELSTEIN: — for so long.

Now, Commissioner Copps and I, as he indicated, are fresh off the trail of hearings that we held across the country, where we traveled to hear the views of people who live outside the Beltway. We learned firsthand how most Americans feel about media concentration. And let me tell you, just about everyone is opposed. And I agree with America.

People simply don’t want to see even fewer owners of their media outlets. This is true on people from left to right, liberal to conservative, Democrat to Republican, just like those of you here in this room today with us. Everywhere we went, people told us they’re afraid that big media conglomerates get even bigger, and as that happens, they’ll just chase the bottom line ahead of all else. People expect that that will spell more sensationalism, more crassness, homogenization, and even less serious news coverage than we have today. You could call this the McDonaldization of the American media. It’s the same everywhere you go: Big Mac, fries and a Coke.

Now, in my view, the FCC isn’t just about to McDonaldize the media. It’s about to supersize it. What’s the difference? Well, if it’s supersized, you get more sugar with the soda, you get more fat with the fries, but you get the same old burger, no more meat. Same goes when you supersize the media, you may get more empty calories, but no more substance. And though it may be enjoyable while you’re consuming it, you may feel a little sick afterwards. Now, supersizing your meal isn’t good for your heart. And I think that supersizing your media isn’t good for America’s heart, either.

Just like big media companies, you know, McDonald’s goes out, and they spend a lot of time trying to give people just what they want. Every product is analyzed and tested to make sure that it meets the sort of tastes of the greatest number of people, even if unique local flavors are kind of overseen. And don’t get me wrong, I like McDonald’s. I eat there sometimes. But I don’t eat there every day. And I know it wouldn’t be very healthy if I did.

And the same goes for the media. People need a balanced media diet, a diverse menu, if you will. But it’s a lot harder to set up an alternative broadcast outlet than it is to go set up a new restaurant. Not just anybody can open a TV or radio station. In fact, they’re nearly impossible businesses to break into. And it’ll be all the harder after June 2nd. The broadcast spectrum can’t support everyone who wants a license, and the FCC gives out these licenses, and they’re pretty much already spoken for. You want to buy one? One station in L.A. went for $800 million, television station. So that’s the very reason that for 70 years it’s been the FCC’s job and responsibility to ensure a diversity of media owners and viewpoints over the airwaves. Fast-food chains are welcome to spread as far and wide as they want to, as far and fast as the market will bear. People will always find another place to eat. But they won’t always find a diversity of viewpoints in their media, unless we do our job here at the FCC. And we won’t be doing our job if we treat the media like we treat fast food. Mass-produced media may have more efficiencies, but it could have disastrous results for our democracy.

So, today, we’re six days away from what Wall Street’s calling the “media gold rush.” Many expect we may see an immediate flood of, say, newspapers buying or swapping TV stations. But even if the changes aren’t immediate, over the long term, it’s almost certain that dealmaking will change the face of the media landscape as we know it today. Imagine if here in Washington a cable company bought the biggest newspaper and two or three television stations, what huge power it could have over the thinking that goes on in our nation’s capital. And what would happen if that happened in smaller towns and communities across our country? I predict the American people will notice what happens, and they won’t like it, not one bit.

Americans instinctively hold a deep hostility to big media. It violates every tenet of a free democratic society to let a handful of powerful companies control our media. I’m afraid we’re on the verge of creating a new Citizen Kane for the 21st century, or maybe a handful of them. Americans take this matter, the media that they watch and view every day, very personally. We found that as we traveled across the country. They implored us. They came up and stopped me, and they said, “Please, you know, watch out for us. Do your job. Protect the public interest.” Not one person among the thousands that we spoke to stood up to say, “I want to see even more concentration in our media ownership.” Not one. And that’s what we see in the unprecedented comments that we’re getting. Look at all these comments that we’re surrounded by. I feel a sense of warmth, as we have hundreds of thousands. Now we have 426,000 citizens, have weighed in. Virtually none of them say, “Please, let media companies get even bigger. I can’t wait to see what they’ll do with all those efficiencies.” Even the high-end demographic that watches Lou Dobbs’ Moneyline on CNN was polled about whether, quote, “too few corporations own too many media outlets,” and 98% agreed. I wonder who the other 2% are. I bet they’re investment bankers waiting and anxious to get into some of these deals, and the other 1% work for the big media companies that think they’ll get even bigger.

So, we may be on the verge of making the most widely unpopular decision that the FCC has ever dared to make. And it’s important that you look around and realize who else here is worried about this, because, much like it should be on the public’s airwaves, the diversity of the group here today is its strength, from the Consumers Union to the NRA, the Future of Music Coalition to the Parents Television Council, and the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights to the Catholic Conference of Bishops, National Association of Hispanic and Black Journalists to the Writers Guild to Communications Workers of America to Common Cause and Children Now and many other prominent national organizations that are here today. You represent many facets of the media industry and the public — producers, distributors, creative personalities, newsmakers, and the listeners and viewers that we’re ultimately here to serve. You’re all here today because you know what’s at stake on June 2nd, even if you haven’t yet seen the proposals. And you’re not alone. More than 150 members of Congress, the Congressional Black Caucus, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus are with you. Musicians like Tom Petty, Don Henley, Neil Diamond, Tim McGraw, some of the best artists in this country, and hundreds of others have indicated to us that they’re very concerned about this. More than 300 leading academics have already denounced the FCC’s methodologies. Media moguls like Barry Diller and Ted Turner, who — Ted Turner from — who invented CNN — know firsthand how this industry works, and they’re alarmed.

So, the public chorus is unanimous. And I’ve been asked, in the face of that unanimous chorus, “What does public outrage really matter? What do all these postcards really matter? We can’t just weigh them. You know, we’ve been told to do this by Congress and the courts, and the FCC can’t make these decisions by popular vote.” Well, let me tell you why I believe it matters.

The FCC is charged by law with serving the public interest. And it’s growing more and more clear every day that the public has no interest in seeing media conglomerates grow bigger. The public knows instinctively what the FCC is supposed to do: protect them from big media companies gaining too much control over what they see, what they hear and what they read. The public owns the airwaves. We’re just here to oversee the airwaves in the public’s interest, not in the interests of the corporations that seek to profit by using them. Corporations naturally look for efficiencies and growth. That’s what you expect in a free market society. But I don’t think this is a free market. And let me tell you, a lot of these companies see a whole lot of efficiencies coming around the corner. It’s my job to protect the public’s right to get diverse viewpoints about what’s happening in their own local communities and what’s happening across the country. I, for one, believe that dismissing the public’s views is a recipe for disaster. It’ll have consequences that we’re already beginning to see. And the resulting backlash may lead people to demand even more intrusive regulations than we currently have.

So, rather than allowing massive consolidation, we should take a conservative approach, take it step by step, gradually permit additional mergers that we can evaluate fully before unleashing the industry. So, I caution: Once we place our order on June 2nd, we’ll all have to digest what comes our way, especially if we supersize it. And the public may be about to experience a giant Maalox moment. So I, for one, hope we take it slowly and avoid that kind of indigestion.

But it’s almost too late. In the last six days, you need to do even more than you’ve done thus far. It’s up to each of you to ensure that every American learns what’s at stake here and what’s about to happen to them and their media. The future of our very democracy is at stake. Each of you and your members should contact their friends or neighbors and your co-workers about this. You need to contact your local media outlets and ask them to pay attention, even if it doesn’t suit their owners’ bottom line. Most importantly, people need to express their views on either side to those who represent them.

So far, the national media have paid scant attention to this story. I hope that’s changing. I see a phalanx of cameras over there, and I think we’re starting to get a little bit of momentum here. So, so far, though, I think you need to be the judge, but these companies are letting their urge to merge get in the way of decent journalism, because we haven’t seen much attention yet. It’s not just what you hear. It’s what you don’t hear that matters.

But now that we’re starting to get a little traction, now that we’re starting to see some coverage on this issue, that means all of you must work even harder building awareness and taking action. I sense that we’re finally getting some attention and some momentum. So it’s up to each of you to keep this national dialogue going and make sure that the public’s voice is heard. So, thank you for taking part in this, and I look forward to hearing from you. And I’d like to start with Wade Henderson, who’s president of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights.

WADE HENDERSON: Thank you.

JONATHAN ADELSTEIN: All right, Wade.

WADE HENDERSON: Thank you, Commissioner Adelstein and Commissioner Copps. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I’m Wade Henderson, the executive director of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights. The Leadership Conference is the nation’s oldest, largest and most diverse coalition of civil rights organizations in the nation. In March of 2002, the Leadership Conference partnered with Consumers Union in developing a set of principles for the FCC and Congress regarding media ownership rules. Now, these principles were joined by the NAACP and the National Urban League, the National Council of La Raza, the National Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium, the National Congress of American Indians and the National Partnership of Women and Families, among others.

These principles include, among other points, the fact that the media’s first purpose is to serve the needs of our representative democracy, that diversity of ownership and independent voices, not mere variety of programming, is the aim of current law, and that the rights of viewers and listeners, not media owners, have to be paramount. In our democracy, diversity of viewpoint and voice is essential to preserving our representative nature of our democracy.

Now, the FCC is scheduled to vote, as you noted, on June 2nd on whether to lift these important restrictions on media cross-ownership. We’re here today because we believe the chairman of the FCC, Michael Powell, has focused the current debate over media policy on market efficiencies and technological development, to the exclusion of promoting competition, a diversity of voices and community engagement. Now, a vibrant democracy is best served by media outlets, especially television and radio, where Americans get most of their views, that are not owned by a handful of giant corporations. Yet, under the leadership of Chairman Powell, the FCC is likely to allow even greater concentration by media conglomerates than exists today.

Now, we have seen the disaster in radio that followed — in the concentration of radio that followed the 1996 Telecommunications Act. For example, the number of minority-owned radio stations literally nosedived after the enactment of that statute. Now, if the FCC is allowed to relax the rest of its media concentration rules, Clear Channel Communications and its 1,200 radio stations, for example, give us a peek at what homogenized, cookie-cutter media will be like. Instead of local ownership with roots in a community, town or city and state, we will get ownership divorced from local concerns and issues. This is the antithesis of American democracy and a roadmap for highlighting the voices of the few rather than the voices of the many.

Now, behind closed doors and with little press examination of scrutiny, the major media company CEOs and their lobbyists have turned the FCC into their government tool not for promoting the marketplace of ideas, but pursuing profit in a less competitive media marketplace. American democracy requires a competitive media environment. A media market with diverse voices is to a civil rights agenda that ensures equity and democratic participation in areas vital to the health of our nation and our communities, areas like education, economic opportunity, the environment, healthcare and civic participation.

The Leadership Conference on Civil Rights is proud to stand with Commissioner Copps, Commissioner Adelstein and all others here today who believe this issue warrants much more extensive public input, and that this debate should focus on localism, competition and a diversity of views instead of market efficiencies and technological development. Commissioner Copps and Commissioner Adelstein, thank you for your outstanding leadership and for allowing the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights to participate in today’s hearing.

MICHAEL COPPS: Thank you very much, Mr. Henderson. Now it’s my pleasure to call upon Brent Bozell, who is president of the Parents Television Council, for a few remarks.

BRENT BOZELL: Thank you, Commissioner Copps and Commissioner Adelstein, for the invitation to speak today and for organizing this very important meeting.

When so many disparate organizations, groups ranging from the Catholic Conference to Common Cause, from the Family Research Council and the NRA to MoveOn, the Writers Guild and NOW, when all of us are united on an issue, then one of two things has happened. Either the Earth has spun off its axis and we have all lost our minds, or there is universal support for a concept.

While I join everyone here in saluting those commissioners who are voicing their concerns over the proposed further deregulation of the television and radio industry, I speak for the Parents Television Council’s 850,000 members when I say I’m equally disappointed in those commissioners who are listening only to the voices of a handful of massive corporations that stand to profit from further deregulation.

In 1989, the big three networks — NBC, ABC and CBS — held a 17% ownership share of TV programming. By 2002, it had increased to 48%. Now add Fox, AOL Time Warner and ATT/Liberty, and these six megacorporations today control two-thirds of all viewers on television. Let’s be clear here: Further deregulation will give them further control of the airwaves.

There are many reasons not to give these six megacorporations even more control of our airwaves, one of them being their utter lack of attentiveness to community standards. In the last year, the PTC has sent out over 1.5 million community standard audits, of which over 128% of them have been returned. The numbers speak for themselves: 94.2% believe there shouldn’t be graphic violence during children’s viewing time; 93.1% think you shouldn’t have partial nudity during that time; 94.6% believe there should not be a promotion of homosexual sex; 94.5% say the same thing about oral sex; and 94.6% about sex with minors; 94.2 believe there shouldn’t be blasphemous language; 94.1% say the same thing about excretory language; 94.3% are against descriptions of sexual encounters; 93.8% are opposed to strong slurs; and 94.6% are opposed to strong sexual language during children’s viewing times. Guess what: All these things can now be found on television courtesy of these six megacorporations. They could care less who they offend, and now want even more control of the airwaves, where they can offend even more.

Competition is not the answer, because virtually no one has the resources to compete with these people. The only answer is to do the opposite of what Chairman Powell is suggesting. Maybe instead of giving more controls, steps should be taken to take away some of the authority from these blatantly offending corporations who are offending the American family. Thank you, commissioners.

AMY GOODMAN: Brent Bozell, Parents Television Council, among many groups speaking out against the passage of rules that would further deregulate the media. The vote is expected to take place on June 2nd, though many have asked for a postponement of that vote. We’ll be back with this press conference that took place on Tuesday in Washington. Stay with us.

[break]

AMY GOODMAN: You are listening to Democracy Now! That was Harry Belafonte singing “This Land Is Your Land.” I’m Amy Goodman, as we return to the news conference held on Tuesday in Washington of groups opposed to further media deregulation. And the vote is expected to take place on June 2nd. Two dissident commissioners were there: Michael Copps and Jonathan Adelstein. The next to speak was Democracy Now! co-host and president of National Association Hispanic Journalists, Juan González.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: As people involved every day in producing news, my members have a unique perspective on the question before you. We work for a lot of these people that we’re talking about who want these laws changed. And as Latino journalists, we are painfully aware of the historical failings of our industry when it comes to serving the public interest and preserving diverse voices.

Last December, the NAHJ released our seventh annual Network Brownout Report, which found that in 2001, less than 1% of all the news stories on the network evening newscasts of ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN were about issues that were critical to the Latino community or focused on the Latino community, and too often they portrayed Latinos stereotypically as illegal immigrants, as prone to violence and as living in slums. Last year, a study by Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting found that 92% of all U.S. news sources who were interviewed on the nightly newscasts of ABC, CBS and NBC in 2001 were white. They also found that of those 14,632 news sources quoted on the networks, 0.6% of them were Latinos. So we are experts at nothing, as far as the networks are concerned, but crime and immigration. We are expected to believe that with further deregulation, this historic problem of misrepresentation and underreporting of the Latino as well as the African American and other minority communities will change.

Another aspect that has not been dealt with at all about this is Spanish-language media. For instance, Univision is the dominant network in Spanish-language media. Univision is about to merge with the Hispanic Broadcasting Corporation, the largest Spanish-language radio network in the United States. What most Americans are not aware of is that neither Univision nor the Hispanic Broadcasting Corporation are Hispanic-owned. They are Anglo-owned corporations where the Latinos are largely in front of the camera, but all of the business decisions, the sales and the marketing is largely in white Anglo hands in the United States. And these are major companies that the merger of Univision and HBC will put 85% of the Spanish-language media in the United States in the hands of one corporation, which happens to be allied with Clear Channel in a variety of other enterprises, so that the Spanish-language media in the United States will be largely under control of one corporation, which is in no way related directly to the Latino community other than that it sells its wares there.

So, NAHJ is concerned about how the lifting of caps will affect a Latino ownership already endangered in radio, as well as in television and in program production. We are deeply concerned that, so far, the existing media structure has not served properly the Latino community, the 35 million Latinos in this country, and we continue to believe that it’s going to get worse.

Technically, under the current alleged — because we haven’t seen the actual, officially, the proposals of Chairman Powell — it would be possible for a newspaper to own a television station, for that combined entity to own three more television stations in the same city, and for that combined entity to own eight radio stations in the same city, if three of those caps are removed. This would be a huge, dominant news source in one — in any one city. And we’re definitely concerned about how localism, how competition and how diversity would be properly addressed by such a combination.

It is clear that the need for size and scope in national media companies and the drive to maximize profits in that realm cannot at the same time address the needs of local communities, whether they be Latino, African American rural communities or other urban communities for their local news needs, for the coverage of local politics, which continues to decline throughout the United States on television, the coverage of local politics to be able to inform local communities about their city councilmen, their school board members, their mayors and their governors’ races.

So, we think that this broad coalition that’s come together needs to stay together. It may seem like we have not accomplished much, but I think the groundswell that has developed over the last few months has already put certain brakes on the FCC in terms of what it’s intending to do. If we’re able to stay together after whatever decision comes forth on June 2nd, there will undoubtedly be numerous court challenges. And there will be numerous opportunities in the Congress to be able to put some brakes on these five or six dominant corporations.

And I think that for us, the journalists — and I tell you, because we know what is happening in these newsrooms and what is happening to the quality of the news, the diversity of the news that we have to produce, as a result of the constant pressures on the bottom line by these companies. We need help within these newsrooms to be able to provide the American people with the kind of news that would make them more informed citizens, more able to judge what they have to do when they go to the voting booth and in their everyday lives. So, we need help, we the journalists who are trying to provide the best possible comprehensive news coverage to the American people. And we need to stick together. And I call on all of our journalist friends. We’ve been trying to do that at NHJ for a while. Don’t sit by silently while this goes on, because your profession will suffer, the American people will suffer. And so, if you think by staying quiet and staying under the radar and not taking a stand that you’re doing something, you’re not.

MICHAEL COPPS: Thank you very much, Juan. I’d like to call now on Gerry Waldron of the Network Affiliated Stations Alliance, who is representing independent local television stations.

GERARD WALDRON: Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Copps and Commissioner Adelstein. I’m Jerry Waldron, represent the Network Affiliated Stations Alliance, which is the more than 600 local TV stations affiliated with the ABC, NBC and CBS networks.

The local broadcasters have been fighting the question about how concentrated should the national market be since 1995, when the networks first went to Congress and sought to get a raise up actually to repeal the rule altogether. The local affiliates banded together, and some of the people in this room were involved in that. I, frankly, wish more of you had been involved in that. Maybe we would have done better. But we ended up compromising a 35% cap. And so, this is now the question before the Congress actually kicked over to the FCC, is: What should the 35% ownership cap go? I think it’s very interesting to look at.

Most of the people around the table are actually — represent consumers of television news, consumers of television, consumers of television programming. There are some people, such as Mr. González and the Association — the National Association of Black Journalists, the Writers Guild and others, such as local broadcasters, who actually are in the broadcast business and are very much interested in, frankly, seeing the broadcast business succeed and seeing how the values that our broadcast system is built upon, namely localism, how they are reinforced or, frankly, defeated by the rules that the FCC adopts. I thought Juan’s example of local news coverage is critical to this proceeding. And frankly, we see localism as the bedrock principle of our entire broadcasting system. You go to other countries, you go to other environments, and it is a national, as Commissioner Copps said, homogenized nationalized programming. In our country, the decisions about what should be on local news, what should be on local stations, is made by local broadcasters. That’s the bedrock of localism.

That principle, we believe, is threatened if the ownership cap has moved from 35%. Frankly, we think it’s under threat right now. Forty percent or 45%, the fear is that suddenly the balance of power between the affiliates, on the one hand, and the networks, on the other, tips in their favor. And so, no longer will those local decisions about covering the local race — no longer will those decisions be made in local communities or, frankly, by anyone other than the decision makers in New York and Los Angeles. And that is the battle that we bring here today, is to ensure that localism endures.

Not everyone agrees with that. Let me cite to you what the networks’ economist said to the FCC about localism. He said — and it was Bruce Owen, very well-regarded, very well-compensated economist, with Economists Inc., said the FCC values too highly localism. It’s not justified that they would put such a premium on localism. And he went on to say that, frankly, the FCC stresses too much news and public affairs programming. It’s really, that, not much different than entertainment.

That’s not the view, frankly, of local broadcasters. I don’t think that’s the view of the journalists. I don’t think that’s the view of the many people in the business around this table. I would argue that it’s probably not the view of many people on the consuming side of this equation. And so, that is, frankly, the principle that we are fighting for, is the localism. And by localism, I do mean the ability of somebody other than the national networks to decide how these broadcast stations are run.

I will add, however — and I understand that this puts me on the other side of many of my friends around the table here — that local broadcasters do believe, frankly, that some change is needed in the duopoly rules, because local broadcasters actually are having trouble paying the bills. The digital transition is very expensive. Above the top-tier markets, frankly, local broadcasters are having trouble making it. Networks are not paying them anymore. Networks want to buy out their stations. There are significant economic pressures. We think that actually relaxing the rules on duopoly actually serves localism, because instead of that station going dark, instead of that station being bought by one of the networks, that station can have the advantage of being on the air and providing local news programming. The other choice is it’d be run as a syndicated programming remotely. So, we think that localism is the foundation for both keeping the national cap where it is, but also looking at dealing with the duopoly question in a way that, frankly, it preserves the role of broadcasters in our community.

Finally, I would just underscore that the goal of preventing the nationalization of programming is one which, frankly, the affiliates have been fighting back since at least 1995. And I can date myself with Andy Schwartzman and others in the room, when it was the 7-7-7 rule. They’ve been fighting it for a very long time. And we’re pleased that so many important groups across the country have joined the fight. Thank you.

JONATHAN ADELSTEIN: Thank you, Jerry. Next, I’d like to introduce Terry O’Neill, who’s vice president of the National Organization of Women.

TERRY O’NEILL: Thank you, Commissioner Adelstein. And thank you and Commissioner Copps for organizing this meeting.

You know, women only got the right to vote in 1920. And that right is meaningless unless we have unbiased information available to us through unbiased news sources on which women can base their political choices. The National Organization for Women, the country’s oldest and largest women’s rights organization, has worked for many years with the Federal Communications Commission. I’m sure Commissioner Copps is very familiar with all of the filings that we’ve made in various rule makings. And Commissioner Adelstein, you’ll probably hear from us quite a bit, too. And we’re very proud of the work that we’ve done with the Federal Communications Commission. And believe me, our members care deeply about the communications industry, and in particular about the Federal Communications Commission’s move to further consolidate ownership in Media.

Today, women and minorities make up less than 5% of the ownership of broadcast outlets. And when you look at the top 10 media conglomerates, women account for less than 15% of the top executives. Women account for less than 15% of the top executives at daily newspapers around the country. That’s an average number. The picture for women of color is significantly worse than that.

What is it that’s going to happen if and when the commission goes ahead and votes with this further consolidation in the media? Well, just look at what happened in radio when the consolidation was permitted in 1996 through the Telecommunications Act. We saw a lot fewer companies, a concentration of ownership in the radio companies. And what do they do with that concentration of ownership? Well, for example, recently Clear Channel used its enormous media power to propagate a particular political viewpoint when it organized pro-war demonstrations during the recent Iraq conflict.

In a democracy, the communications media must be recognized as a public trust. It is not merely the private property of the owners of these media outlets, not merely that, but it is deeply affected with a public interest. And we look to the Federal Communications Commission to create an environment in which many voices can be heard, in which many points of view can be put forth, because only with that can our democracy flourish. And let’s face it: It’s in a democracy, eventually, that women will achieve full equality. Thank you.

MICHAEL COPPS: Thank you very much. Chellie Pingree is president of Common Cause, and we’re delighted she is with us this afternoon.

CHELLIE PINGREE: Great. Thank you very much. Commissioner Copps and Commissioner Adelstein, thank you so much for both bringing us all together for your articulate statements and all the hard work you’ve been doing in respecting your responsibilities as people who represent the people here. And I also just want to say I’m very pleased to be here with everyone at the table and part of this wonderful, diverse partnership on an issue that’s so important to all of us and so important to our members at Common Cause.

You know, in 1972, John Gardner, who was the founder of Common Cause, wrote, “Even more troubling is the fact that new outlets are coming increasingly into the hands of conglomerates, which are deeply involved in businesses unrelated to the information field. How honestly will media thus controlled report news that might do commercial injury to the other parts of the conglomerate?” Well, 30 years ago, he was as right as, unfortunately, he is today. I think that Thomas Jefferson would be rolling over in his grave as our media outlets are owned by a handful of a few giants and media coverage is not what we need in a healthy democracy.

This concentration of media ownership results in Americans being short-changed of the news, the information that they need as citizens. Common Cause has heard from thousands of citizens. In fact, in the last two weeks, we’ve had a greater concentration of signatures to our petition than we ever had on any issue in this short period of time. And we’ve brought several of them, as others have today. And we have only just become aware of this issue in many parts of the country, so I think this interest on the part of the public is staggering.

It has not been well covered by the media, although I have to say I apologize for leaving early, because we have gotten a lot of media attention in the last week or so, and I have to run off to do some. But that said, I’m glad to see that. And I don’t think that would have happened without all the players at the table doing such hard work. And we also have been pleased to join in a partnership with MoveOn, who is here, and Fair Media to do a print ad and TV ads, which are starting this week, featuring some of the concerns that we have about this important issue.

A democracy can’t work if citizens aren’t informed about what their government is doing and the vital issues of the day. Citizens depend on radio, TV, newspapers for their information. If a handful of companies own all these sources, as we know, citizens will just not get the information that they need. Media giants ignore the local news. They shrink the news staffs and care more about their profit motives and certainly aren’t concerned about the diversity of opinion. Our democracy will be poorer if these media ownership rules are relaxed or eliminated. I know our members are committed to working very hard in the next six days, and I just want to thank all of you for being here and working as hard as you are on this issue.

AMY GOODMAN: And that was Chellie Pingree, president of Common Cause. Common Cause, MoveOn.org and MediaReform.net took out an almost full-page ad in The Washington Post yesterday featuring Rupert Murdoch and the FCC. It says, “This man wants to control the news in America. The FCC wants to help him.” FCC expected to vote on media deregulation on June 2nd, despite the call to postpone that vote. Organizations around the country are organizing today a mass protest against Clear Channel around the country.

That does it for the show. Check out our FCC special coverage segment of our website, democracynow.org. You can get a copy of today’s show by calling 1-800-881-2359. That’s 1-800-881-2359. Democracy Now! is produced by Kris Abrams, Mike Burke, Angie Karran, Sharif Abdel Kouddous, Ana Nogueira, Elizabeth Press, with help from Noah Reibel and Vilka Tzouras. Mike Di Filippo, our engineer, with Rich Kim. Our email address, mail@democracynow.org. I’m Amy Goodman. Thanks for joining us.

[End of Hour 1]

AMY GOODMAN: From Pacifica Radio, this is Democracy Now!

BERNICE JOHNSON REAGON: But in the civil rights movement, in jails, in rallies, the sound was a way of announcing a community. And you actually, when you sang, could change the air you stood in for two or three blocks, and no microphones. And in changing that air, anybody who walked toward you, including the police, would be walking into your sound, and they would get to you long before they would get to your body.

AMY GOODMAN: Today, an hour with the legendary civil rights singers Sweet Honey in the Rock. All that and more, coming up

Welcome to Democracy Now!, The War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman.

President Bush yesterday signed into law the third tax cut in three years. Bush signed the bill in the East Room of the White House among gilded mirrors and chandeliers, in front of dozens of cameras and hundreds of lobbyists, aides and taxpayers. He claimed the measure will create jobs and give money back to working people. But The New York Times reports on its front page today that a last-minute revision in the bill will prevent millions of minimum-wage families from receiving the increased child credit that is in the measure. The bill raises the child tax credit by $400, so this summer most taxpayers will receive a check in the mail for $400 per child. But after studying the bill approved on Friday, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and child advocacy groups discovered that families who make just above the minimum wage will not receive the kickback. Senate and House leaders dropped these families who make only $10,000 to $26,000 a year from the bill at the last minute. The Washington Post reports Bush avoided any mention of the federal deficit in his 20-minute speech and three-pen signing ceremony. But the tax cut he signed was made possible by legislation he privately signed a day earlier that increased the federal government’s debt ceiling by nearly $1 trillion.

The New York Times reports today U.S. military commanders now plan to keep a larger force in Iraq than had been expected. War-hardened units will also be deployed to hot spots outside Baghdad. This is to quell unrest and extend U.S. control. The news emerges as four U.S. soldiers were killed during armed Iraqi resistance this week. Earlier this month, military officials said they were hoping to reduce U.S. troops to less than two divisions by the fall.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair has landed in Basra. He has become the first Western leader to visit post-invasion Iraq. Blair’s arrival comes amidst a mounting controversy over the 50-page dossier on Saddam Hussein’s weapons, which Blair used to try to make the case for an invasion. An unnamed senior British official told the BBC Radio 4 that the Blair government doctored the dossier to make it, quote, “sexier.” The official said most people in intelligence, quote, “weren’t happy with the dossier, because it didn’t reflect the considered view they were putting forward.” He said the classic example of this was the claim that Iraq had chemical and biological weapons which were ready for use within 45 minutes. He said that information was not in the original draft, because it wasn’t reliable, coming from a single source intelligence officials believed was wrong. According to the BBC, the parliamentary Intelligence and Security Committee is set to conduct an inquiry into the issue.

Meanwhile, the BBC refused yesterday to remove footage of two British soldiers killed in Iraq from a documentary, this despite pressure from the prime minister, the defense minister and the soldiers’ families. A BBC spokesperson said it’s in the public interest to show a seven-second clip of the bodies as part of a film about the Arab TV station Al Jazeera. The program deals with the differences in coverage of the war between the Arab world and the West. Tony Blair stepped in after the BBC declined to accept calls from the Defense Department and the families of the two men.

Al Jazeera said Tuesday it will replace its general manager Mohammed Jasim al-Ali. Al-Ali has managed the station since it was founded seven years ago. The broadcaster did not give a reason for his removal. But the announcement comes just days after Secretary of State General Colin Powell criticized Al Jazeera for airing a purported al-Qaeda tape. Al Jazeera’s board of directors is responsible for its editorial policy. It’s chaired by Sheikh Hamad bin Thamer Al Thani, a member of Qatar’s royal family. Last week, the station aired an audiotape attributed to bin Laden’s top lieutenant, Ayman al-Zawahiri. After speaking with Qatar’s former foreign minister, Powell said he believed the Gulf state was taking some action.

France said yesterday it will begin deploying a French-led multinational force in the Democratic Republic of Congo next week to halt a surge in violence. The French commitment to lead a force of over 1,000 troops comes after U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan appealed to French President Jacques Chirac to intervene. A U.N. spokesperson in the town of Bunia told CNN today the death toll from recent clashes has risen to 415. Tens of thousands of people have fled from their homes.

Pakistani police arrested dozens of opposition lawmakers in a provincial assembly yesterday. The lawmakers were protesting Pakistani President General Pervez Musharraf’s unilateral constitutional changes.

The family of a Spanish journalist killed when a U.S. tank fired on the Palestine Hotel in Baghdad has filed suit against three U.S. soldiers, accusing them of war crimes and murder. Spanish television cameraman José Couso was killed when a U.S. tank fired on the hotel, housing almost all the unembedded international journalists in Baghdad.

This news from Peru: Soldiers and police are cracking down violently on striking farmers, teachers and other protesters after President Alejandro Toledo imposed a 30-day state of emergency, banning strikers from the streets and giving the military and police more powers to use force. Hospital officials have told Reuters that more than 20 people have been hurt from gunshot wounds after soldiers fired into the air in clashes across Peru. Toledo is a U.S.-trained former World Bank adviser. Many Peruvians say he has failed to fulfill his promises to create jobs, prosperity and return to true democracy.

Under the White House’s much-touted $15 billion AIDS bill, the U.S. government is urging developing countries to accept food aid from the United States, including genetically engineered crops. According to The Washington Post, the AIDS bill that became law this week includes a little-noticed provision that urges 14 African and Caribbean countries to accept the food. This comes just days after President Bush charged that Europe’s stance against genetically modified food is perpetuating hunger in Africa.