Skip to main content
Skip to navigation
Skip to footer
Home
Jet Kingdom
Jet Kingdom - Latest News
Calendar
Meadowlands Stadium Weather
Jet Links
Podcasts
Polls
Reviews
Schedule & Events
Images
NFL Stadiums
Draft
Forums
Information Booth
Jet Fans
Photo Gallery
Stud or Dud
Files
Archive
Why Jet Kingdom
Jets Logos
Log in
/
Forums
/
Throne Room
/
Cablevision's blinders (Newsday Columnist)
Cablevision's blinders (Newsday Columnist)
jake
· 2005-03-26
Cablevision's blinders (Newsday Columnist)
http://www.newsday.com/news/columnists/ny-livit254190055mar25,0,3571190.column?coll=ny-news-columnists Cablevision's blinders March 25, 2005 Unless you have a satellite dish or an old-fashioned antenna, your TV viewing is likely made possible by Cablevision, the Bethpage-based cable and sports conglomerate that is the TV gatekeeper - and toll taker - to about 3 million households in the New York area, including almost a million on Long Island. It's a major public franchise, sort of the media equivalent of the LIE: It's not the only way on and off the Island, but imagine getting anywhere without it. So, what if Cablevision decided tomorrow to get involved in local public affairs? Say, schools? What if it got tired of paying high local taxes and decided that shuttering half the schools and consolidating them under one New York City-style system would be better? It's an idea with some merit. With an unlimited budget, and a virtual intravenous line into our living rooms, Cablevision might persuade a lot of people. Now, suppose many parents who hated the idea raised a bunch of money, and planned an ad campaign of their own - and were refused access to the cable system? What would you call this? Cablevision would call it exercising its First Amendment rights. And under the law as it exists, it would be correct. "Cablevision is well within its First Amendment rights, and that opinion is shared by the FCC and long-standing precedent," said Randy Mastro, a Cablevision lawyer. He was not talking about my hypothetical scenario but about the real battle between his client and the New York Jets over a matter of public policy known as the West Side stadium. The Jets want to build the new stadium in Manhattan, with help from the MTA and the city. Cablevision, which owns Madison Square Garden, doesn't want a competing arena. It has spent about $22 million on advertising to oppose the Jets' plan. Most of it has aired on the various channels it tollgates. You have seen these ads. Contrary to my scenario, they actually advocate more school spending - instead of stadium building. But the question I have is not whether a media conglomerate is on the right side or not. It's whether such a conglomerate should be able to control the debate of any public issue - as Cablevision did when it refused this month to allow the Jets to buy airtime to promote its plan. Cablevision contends the Jets' ads were "distorting" the issue. But what was distorting the issue was the roadblock Cablevision put up on a debate that is not only about the spending of public money, but which has evolved into a major front in this year's New York City mayoral campaign. Mayor Michael Bloomberg favors the stadium, many of his presumed Democratic challengers oppose it, and political people are lining up on every side almost every day. Under the law, Cablevision would be unable to refuse political campaign ads from any candidate in an actual election, an Federal Communcations Commission spokesman said. But because the stadium deal is a political issue that isn't being voted on directly, they are not obliged. "Whatever media you're dealing with - the Tribune Company, the New York Times or Cablevision, the general rule is that there is a First Amendment right to refuse or accept advertising as that entity sees fit," said Bruce E. H. Johnson, a lawyer who specializes in commercial advertising issues. "There used to be something called the Fairness Doctrine," said Steve Brody, another lawyer in that field. "But because we now have more voices - broadcast, cable, the Internet - it's presumed that different views will find their audiences." But what if one voice is attached to a megaphone, and its owner gags anybody who differs? And what if the Big Voice has a financial interest in the outcome of this public dispute in which it gags people? This is the problem of media conglomeration: After building their giant bridges and tunnels to your living rooms, the toll takers eventually will get to take anything they want, including your voice. Copyright © 2005, Newsday, Inc. Copyright © Newsday, Inc. Produced by Newsday Electronic Publishing. http://www.newsday.com/news/columnists/ny-livit254190055mar25,0,3571190.column?coll=ny-news-columnists
http://www.newsday.com/news/columnists/ny-livit254190055mar25,0,3571190.column?coll=ny-news-columnists
jake · 2005-03-26
http://www.newsday.com/news/columnists/ny-livit254190055mar25,0,3571190.column?coll=ny-news-columnists Cablevision's blinders March 25, 2005 Unless you have a satellite dish or an old-fashioned antenna, your TV viewing is likely made possible by Cablevision, the Bethpage-based cable and sports conglomerate that is the TV gatekeeper - and toll taker - to about 3 million households in the New York area, including almost a million on Long Island. It's a major public franchise, sort of the media equivalent of the LIE: It's not the only way on and off the Island, but imagine getting anywhere without it. So, what if Cablevision decided tomorrow to get involved in local public affairs? Say, schools? What if it got tired of paying high local taxes and decided that shuttering half the schools and consolidating them under one New York City-style system would be better? It's an idea with some merit. With an unlimited budget, and a virtual intravenous line into our living rooms, Cablevision might persuade a lot of people. Now, suppose many parents who hated the idea raised a bunch of money, and planned an ad campaign of their own - and were refused access to the cable system? What would you call this? Cablevision would call it exercising its First Amendment rights. And under the law as it exists, it would be correct. "Cablevision is well within its First Amendment rights, and that opinion is shared by the FCC and long-standing precedent," said Randy Mastro, a Cablevision lawyer. He was not talking about my hypothetical scenario but about the real battle between his client and the New York Jets over a matter of public policy known as the West Side stadium. The Jets want to build the new stadium in Manhattan, with help from the MTA and the city. Cablevision, which owns Madison Square Garden, doesn't want a competing arena. It has spent about $22 million on advertising to oppose the Jets' plan. Most of it has aired on the various channels it tollgates. You have seen these ads. Contrary to my scenario, they actually advocate more school spending - instead of stadium building. But the question I have is not whether a media conglomerate is on the right side or not. It's whether such a conglomerate should be able to control the debate of any public issue - as Cablevision did when it refused this month to allow the Jets to buy airtime to promote its plan. Cablevision contends the Jets' ads were "distorting" the issue. But what was distorting the issue was the roadblock Cablevision put up on a debate that is not only about the spending of public money, but which has evolved into a major front in this year's New York City mayoral campaign. Mayor Michael Bloomberg favors the stadium, many of his presumed Democratic challengers oppose it, and political people are lining up on every side almost every day. Under the law, Cablevision would be unable to refuse political campaign ads from any candidate in an actual election, an Federal Communcations Commission spokesman said. But because the stadium deal is a political issue that isn't being voted on directly, they are not obliged. "Whatever media you're dealing with - the Tribune Company, the New York Times or Cablevision, the general rule is that there is a First Amendment right to refuse or accept advertising as that entity sees fit," said Bruce E. H. Johnson, a lawyer who specializes in commercial advertising issues. "There used to be something called the Fairness Doctrine," said Steve Brody, another lawyer in that field. "But because we now have more voices - broadcast, cable, the Internet - it's presumed that different views will find their audiences." But what if one voice is attached to a megaphone, and its owner gags anybody who differs? And what if the Big Voice has a financial interest in the outcome of this public dispute in which it gags people? This is the problem of media conglomeration: After building their giant bridges and tunnels to your living rooms, the toll takers eventually will get to take anything they want, including your voice. Copyright © 2005, Newsday, Inc. Copyright © Newsday, Inc. Produced by Newsday Electronic Publishing. http://www.newsday.com/news/columnists/ny-livit254190055mar25,0,3571190.column?coll=ny-news-columnistsCablevision's blinders (Newsday Columnist)
http://www.newsday.com/news/columnists/ny-livit254190055mar25,0,3571190.column?coll=ny-news-columnists