Easily Understandable Explanation of Derivative Markets
Heidi is the proprietor of a bar in Detroit. She realizes that virtually all of her customers are unemployed alcoholics and, as such, can no longer afford to patronize her bar. To solve
this problem, she comes up with a new marketing plan that allows her customers to drink now, but pay later.
Heidi keeps track of the drinks consumed on a ledger (thereby granting the customers' loans).
Word gets around about Heidi's "drink now, pay later" marketing strategy and, as a result, increasing numbers of customers flood into Heidi's bar. Soon she has the largest sales volume for any bar in Detroit.
By providing her customers freedom from immediate payment demands, Heidi gets no resistance when, at regular intervals, she substantially increases her prices for wine and beer, the most consumed beverages.
Consequently, Heidi's gross sales volume increases massively.
A young and dynamic vice-president at the local bank recognizes that these customer debts constitute valuable future assets and increases Heidi's borrowing limit. He sees no reason for any undue concern, since he has the debts of the unemployed alcoholics as collateral.
At the bank's corporate headquarters, expert traders figure a way to make huge commissions, and transform these customer loans into DRINKBONDS, ALKIBONDS and PUKEBONDS.
These securities are then bundled and traded on international security markets.
Naive investors don't really understand that the securities being sold to them as AAA secured bonds are really the debts of unemployed alcoholics. Nevertheless, the bond prices continuously climb, and the securities soon become the hottest-selling items for some of the nation's leading brokerage houses.
Congress now mandates that the banks, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, extend credit in the name of affordable drinking. This affordable drinking mandate was wildly popular among their constituents, the alcoholics at Heidi's bar.
One day, even though the bond prices are still climbing, a risk manager at the original local bank decides that the time has come to demand payment on the debts incurred by the drinkers at Heidi's bar. He so informs Heidi.
Heidi then demands payment from her alcoholic patrons, but being unemployed alcoholics they cannot pay back their drinking debts. Since Heidi cannot fulfill her loan obligations she is forced into bankruptcy.
The bar closes and the eleven employees lose their jobs.
Overnight, DRINKBONDS, ALKIBONDS and PUKEBONDS drop in price by 90%. The collapsed bond asset value destroys the banks liquidity and prevents it from issuing new loans, thus freezing credit and economic activity in the community.
The suppliers of Heidi's bar had granted her generous payment extensions and had invested their firms' pension funds in the various BOND securities. They find they are now faced with having to write off her bad debt and with losing over 90% of the presumed value of the bonds.
Her wine supplier also claims bankruptcy, closing the doors on a family business that had endured for three generations.
Her beer supplier is taken over by a competitor, who immediately closes the local plant and lays off 150 workers.
Fortunately though, the bank, the brokerage houses and their respective executives are saved and bailed out by a multi-billion dollar no-strings attached cash infusion from their cronies in Government. The funds required for this bailout are obtained by new taxes levied on employed,
middle-class, non-drinkers who have never been in Heidi's bar.
Then to revive the economy once the credit crunch came, Congress went out and borrowed a trillion dollars in the name of a stimulus package so that all the alcoholics at Heidi bar could go out to dinner.
Now do you understand?
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Pass a Workplace Bill of Rights
Workplace Bill of Rights
Over 200 years ago, the Bill of Rights codified our most basic and cherished liberties as citizens of the United States. Now it's time for the following "Workplace Bill of Rights" to ensure that, no matter the economic climate, we have fairness, justice, and safety as working people in America:
1. Employees should be treated with honesty and respect.
2. Working full-time should guarantee a basic standard of living.
3. Workplaces should be free of discrimination.
4. No working person should be without health insurance.
5. No one should have to work his or her entire life.
6. Employees should be able to leave a job with dignity.
7. Every workplace should be as safe as possible.
8. There is more to life than work.
9. Employees are entitled to work together.
Today we find more and more Americans are worse off than their parents, or worried their children will be worse off than themselves. We must preserve the American Dream for current and future generations of hard-working people throughout our great nation. Pitting one group of workers against another results in a race to the bottom that we all loose.
For complete details about our Workplace Bill of Rights idea visit:
http://www.workplacefairness.org/workplace-bill-of-rights
- Paula Brantner-nonprofit workplace lawyer
Monday, February 8, 2010
Thomson Reuters 'Illegally' Imposing Pay Cuts on U.S. Journos, The Newspaper Guild Charges
By Mark FitzgeraldCHICAGO Thomson Reuters Corp. is "illegally imposing drastic" pay cuts on U.S.-based unionized journalists and technicians at the financial information and news service, the Newspaper Guild of New York alleges in a complaint to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).
According to the Guild, Thomson Reuters ended more than a year of contract talks with the union by unilaterally declaring negotiations at an impasse on Jan. 19. Thomson Reuters also said then, "it would implement most of its comprehensive package of cuts throughout this year, which would reduce employees' compensation by an average 10 percent," a Guild announcement of the NLRB filing said.
Thomson Reuters disputed the Guild account in a statement reported by The Associated Press Friday, and said it was actually guaranteeing a 0.5% salary increase for the approximately 400 unionized journalists at Reuters News service. Thomson Reuters also said some employee could get further merit pay increases. "We believe such a system is fairer than a lockstep system and is essential for Reuters' future," the statement said in part.
The Guild complaint also says Thomson Reuters "illegally" implemented a Twitter policy without negotiating with the union. According to the Guild the policy bars employees from writing anything on the mini-blog service "that would damage the reputation of Reuters News or Thomson Reuters."
"A union activist was 'reminded' of the policy after responding to a senior manager's call to 'join the (Twitter) conversation on making Reuters the best place to work' with a tweet that said: 'One way to make this the best place to work is to deal honestly with Guild members,'" the Guild local said in a statement.
An earlier complaint filed with the NLRB says Thomson Reuters has "made it all but impossible to bargain over major economic issues" by withholding information from the union."This dispute is really about saving quality journalism in this country," New York Guild President Bill O'Meara said in a statement. "If a healthy company like Thomson Reuters -- whose CEO made almost as much in 2008 as our 420 members' annual salaries -- cuts pay, it will cause less healthy news organizations to cut even more, and pretty soon many of the journalists our democracy depends on won't be able to afford to stay in the business."
The Newspaper Guild, Local 31003 of the Communications Workers of America, represents news text, photo, television, technical and related employees at the company.
Friday, February 5, 2010
Disney Hotel Workers To Start Protest Fasting Tuesday
by Sarah Tully, The Orange County RegisterSome Disney hotel workers today said they are willing to risk their own health by joining a hunger strike for the sake of securing free healthcare benefits.
Today, the Disney hotel union, Unite Here Local 11, announced that 10 members plan to start a hunger strike on Tuesday to draw attention to a two-year contract dispute. The participants plan to consume only water for at least seven days.
Disney officials say the union is using the strike to distract from the negotiations stalemate.
“This is just another tactic from Local 11 leadership to distract from the fact that after two years their members are still without a contract,” said Suzi Brown, a Disneyland Resort spokeswoman, in a prepared statement Wednesday.
“This is just another tactic from Local 11 leadership to distract from the fact that after two years their members are still without a contract,” said Suzi Brown, a Disneyland Resort spokeswoman, in a prepared statement Wednesday.
The main contention is over healthcare costs: Disney wants employees to contribute to the company health plan. The union wants to keep providing its own free health care for about 2,150 members, with Disney kicking in more funds.
In the past two years, employees say workloads also have increased, some leading to health problems, said Ada Briceno, the union’s secretary-treasurer. Disney officials say that the workload has remained about the same and injury reports have collectively decreased in the past two years at the three hotels: Grand Californian, Paradise Pier and Disneyland.
“We are offering Local 11 the same reliable and affordable heath care coverage in which members of the other 30 of 31 unions at Disneyland Resort and more than 66,000 Disney employees nationwide participate,” Brown said in a prepared statement.
Basema Sharaf, the widow of a hotel cook, said her husband died on the job of a heart attack, which she attributed to his failure to take breaks and to working extra hours.
“He worked under a lot of pressure and stress at Disneyland,” Sharaf said.
Kristi Richards, a Grand Californian Hotel cashier who worked with Musa Sharaf, tearfully said she is fasting to pay respect to her co-worker and support others.
In the past, Richards said she went to work while sick because she couldn’t afford to lose money, as employees have lost sick days because of the contract dispute. But she has since saved up vacation time to take a week off. See a previous story about the sick-pay issue HERE.
“I’ve done everything I can do,” Richards said. “I’m basically out of ideas.”
The participants plan to camp out in tents on the sidewalk in front of the Grand Californian Hotel starting at 5 p.m. Tuesday and are inviting others to join in.
It is illegal to block the sidewalk and officers have been talking to union organizers about logistics, said Sgt. Rick Martinez, an Anaheim Police Department spokesman. Briceno said participants plan to leave room for pedestrians to pass by, but they are willing to get arrested.“We’re hoping it doesn’t come to that,” Briceno said.
In other Disney news, for the second time in less than a year, Disneyland Resort has hiked prices for annual park passes.
Starting today, theme park-goers will pay between $30 and $50 more than they paid in early 2009 for the same annual passes that can be used at Disneyland and Disney’s California Adventure. The hikes range from 11 percent to 26 percent.
Recent union news:
Disney hotel union plans hunger strike 
Disney hotel cleaners complain of workload
Disney hotel union agrees to mediation
100-plus Disney hotel workers walk off job
Disney hotel workers stage first walkout
Some sick Disney hotel employees worked
Disney hotel workers reject contract proposal by 92 percent
Disney workers voting on contract proposal today
Disney hotel workers set to take first contract vote
Disney hotel cleaners complain of workload
Disney hotel union agrees to mediation
100-plus Disney hotel workers walk off job
Disney hotel workers stage first walkout
Some sick Disney hotel employees worked
Disney hotel workers reject contract proposal by 92 percent
Disney workers voting on contract proposal today
Disney hotel workers set to take first contract vote
Congress Grills Comcast, NBCU Executives On Proposed Merger
By AMY SCHATZThe Wall Street Journal
WASHINGTON—Lawmakers on Thursday questioned the impact on consumers from Comcast Corp.'s proposed deal to acquire control of NBC Universal, although they didn't suggest regulators should reject the deal.
Lawmakers asked how the transaction would affect consumers' cable prices and the emerging market of online television and cable programming distribution.
Comcast's Brian Roberts, left, and NBC's Jeff Zucker. testify Thursday.
"The issue really boils down to the seven 'C's. Will this combination of communications colossi curtail competition and cost consumers?" asked Rep. Edward Markey (D., Mass.) during the hearing of the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Communications, Technology and the Internet.
Comcast says that its deal, which marries content and distribution companies, doesn't raise antitrust or other competitive concerns. It believes there are multiple competitors in each of its markets and the barrier to entry online is relatively low.
The combination would result in "a more creative and innovative company that will meet consumer demands," said Comcast Chief Executive Brian Roberts.
"Before this joint venture was proposed I was concerned about the future of broadcasting. It's been under a certain amount of duress," said NBC President Jeff Zucker. Comcast's commitment to invest more in NBC's broadcast properties "give me greater comfort in thinking about the future of broadcasting," he added.
Mr. Roberts said he doesn't believe the FCC needs to attach conditions to the deal. He cited voluntary commitments the company had already made to regulators, including keeping NBC as a broadcast network and increasing the availability of children's programming.
Consumer groups, on the other hand, have urged regulators to reject the deal, saying that it will give Comcast too much influence and power over the cable television market and the emerging market of online video.
"The merger has so many anti-competitive and anti-consumer effects that they just can't be fixed," said Mark Cooper, director of research at the Consumer Federation of America, in written testimony. The deal would have "a bevy of anti-competitive effects that will result in higher prices and fewer choices for consumers," he said.
Despite objections raised by consumer groups, none of the House lawmakers on Thursday morning said regulators should reject it.
However, lawmakers did raise several possible conditions that might appease the concerns of Comcast's rivals and competitors.
Colleen Abdoulah, chief executive of WOW, a small cable provider in the Midwest, said that regulators need to require Comcast-NBC to offer its sports and entertainment programming to smaller rivals, including online video content.
House Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D., Calif.) raised concerns about whether Comcast could favor the cable channels that it owns, such as the Golf Channel, and NBC's cable channels, over its competitors, and suggested the FCC look into possible conditions.
NBC's affiliate stations want assurances that Comcast won't move valuable NBC entertainment and sports programming away to its cable channels. They also want limitations on Comcast's ability to bypass local stations by putting NBC programming on the Internet and protections for the revenue they get from retransmission deals.
"We need assurances that Comcast will continue to invest in new and compelling entertainment and sports programming," said Michael Fiorile, chairman of the NBC Television Affiliates Board and president of Dispatch Printing Co., which owns the NBC affiliate in Indianapolis.
FCC and Justice Department officials have only recently begun their reviews, which could stretch into the fall or winter.
Rep. Rick Boucher (D., Va.), chairman of the House Internet Subcommittee, said he believes government regulators should "move expeditiously" to compete their reviews. "I'm not saying that the agencies should not impose conditions, but the companies deserve an answer in a timely manner."
Write to Amy Schatz at Amy.Schatz@wsj.com
Get The Wall Street Journal At Home Subscribe Now
RELATED STORIES:
Franken takes skeptic's view of Comcast-NBCU's claims:
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/447771-Franken_Spars_With_Roberts_Zucker_At_Comcast_NBCU_Senate_Hearing.php
Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn., who regularly performed on NBC's "Saturday Night Live" and briefly had a sitcom on the network, is casting a skeptical eye on Comcast and NBC Universal's promises that their alliance will have no impact on rivals or viewers. "You'll have to excuse me if I don't trust these promises, and that is from experience in this business," Franken said.
Franken suggested the companies public interest promises could not be trusted and that Comcast, for one, was arguing that FCC rules would protect consumers on one hand, while fighting the same rules in court. Franken came just short of saying Roberts had mislead him in a meeting they had in his office about the issue. Roberts said it had been a misunderstanding between challenges of program access and program carriage rules.
Waxman: Free programming could be in jeopardy with deal:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a82LD8VTQgOg
Free broadcast TV programming could be threatened by the merger of Comcast and NBC Universal, according to Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. "Many are concerned that this transaction could result in the best of NBC's programming being transitioned to a pay-TV service," Waxman said.
Letter: Comcast-NBCU tie-up would harm democracy:
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/447768-Hinchey_Block_That_Deal_.php
Rep. Maurice Hinchey, D-N.Y., in a letter written on behalf of himself and five colleagues, is calling on the FCC and the Department of Justice to stop the Comcast-NBC Universal merger. "This merger would further limit the American people's access to a wide array of information and broadcast content that is inherently necessity for a properly functioning democracy," Hinchey said in a statement.
Thursday, February 4, 2010
WNBC to Launch Morning News Earlier
By Katy BachmanGetting a jump on early risers, WNBC, NBC Universal's New York flagship, will expand its early morning local news by one half-hour. Beginning March 1, Today in New York will begin at 4:30 a.m. and air until 7 a.m.WNBC joins a growing number of stations that program local newscasts earlier than the traditional 5 a.m. start.
WPIX-TV, Tribune's The CW affiliate became the first station in New York to begin its local news at 4:30 a.m., in Sept. 2008.
The early morning daypart is increasingly more lucrative for stations, because more people are tuning in earlier. According to Nielsen, viewers to morning news increased 8 percent last quarter compared to a year ago."Expanding Today in NY to 4:30 [a.m.] allows us to respond to the changing dynamics of our audience and ensure we remain their source for local morning news," said Susan Sullivan, vp of news for NBC New York.
With the additional half-hour, WNBC brings its total number of original programming hours to more than 50 hours each week.
SAG Agrees to Explore Joint Talks With AFTRA
By Wrap StaffScreen Actors Guild's move mirrors last week's actions by American Federation of Television and Radio Artists
The Screen Actors Guild has voted to explore a bargaining partnership with the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists. The move mirrors AFTRA's actions of last month, when it formed a high-level cabinet to examine jointly negotiations with SAG.
Should joint negotiations occur, they would comprise a first step toward possible merger of the two talent guilds, a move vocally supported by recently elected SAG national president Ken Howard. SAG’s current two-year contract, approved last April, doesn’t expire until spring 2011, but the guild and the studios have agreed to start negotiations on the next deal early, on Oct. 1.
Here's the complete statement from SAG, released Sunday night:
Los Angeles, (January 31, 2010) - Screen Actors Guild National Board of Directors voted today to seek engagement with AFTRA in a joint bargaining agreement for negotiation of the Television/Theatrical Contract. Approved 82 to 18 percent, the resolution states:
"It was moved and seconded that in light of SAG's historically productive negotiating partnership with AFTRA, the SAG National Board of Directors directs President Ken Howard and National Executive Director David White to seek engagement with AFTRA in a joint bargaining agreement for negotiation of the Television/Theatrical Contract, under the terms of Phase One, modeled on the agreement used successfully in the 2009 Commercials Contract negotiations. President Howard and NED White shall bring a recommendation to the National Board at the earliest opportunity."
Screen Actors Guild President Ken Howard said, "I am very pleased with the vote and thank the Board for their leadership and foresight on this important issue. I so appreciate the Board's cooperative spirit in this discussion and throughout the day, and feel confident that our Guild is moving in the right direction."
In other actions, the National Board voted unanimously to create a National Performance Capture Committee to address the unique concerns and experiences of members who render performances that are recorded using "performance capture" technology across all media, and to advise the Guild on all matters pertaining to work in this rapidly growing area.
The board also approved 83 percent to 17 percent the unanimous recommendation of the finance committee to authorize the extension of existing initiation fee reductions in targeted markets across the country and to have the Guild's Joint Strategic Planning and Finance Committee review the initiation fee structure nationwide.
National Executive Director David White reported on the strategic planning efforts underway at the Guild and preparation for negotiations. White updated the board on new institutional and member service initiatives including a revitalized organizing strategy and program. White applauded SAG committee members and staff for their innovative and thoughtful work in key areas including the 2010 SAG Awards, government relations and legislative activities, new media outreach activities, and the LifeRaft Live Streaming partnership with SAG Foundation, among other efforts.
The Board also appointed Deputy National Executive Director of Contracts Ray Rodriguez to the Screen Actors Guild-Producers Industry Advancement & Cooperative Fund (IACF) board and addressed a number of governance matters, including a constitutional amendment regarding written assent procedures; an amendment to Branch rules of procedure; advisory recommendations from the annual national membership meeting; amendments to the election guidelines; and a recommendation to study the feasibility of electronic voting.
Sony Slashing 6 1/2% of Staff
By TATIANA SIEGELhttp://www.variety.com
Roughly 450 people will be affected by layoffs
Last year, the studio trimmed its staff by 300 people through a combination of pinkslips and eliminating open positions. And just last week, Sony announced that several high-level execs from its home entertainment and IT divisions were being let go.
The studio began notifying the roughly 450 people who will be affected by the latest round of layoffs on Monday. Most of the pinkslips will be handed out by the first week in March.
A Sony insider said the layoffs are expected to span a range of personnel, including senior-level executives.
In addition, about 100 currently open positions are expected to remain unfilled.
"The decision to take this step was difficult," Sony toppers Michael Lynton and Amy Pascal said to employees in an internal memo. "But it's being done in the context of a strategy designed to help us safeguard our competitiveness and chart our own course through these troubled waters."
The memo said the growth of online piracy is among the culprits for the massive layoffs, which will largely occur in the United States, particularly in home entertainment and IT.
Over the past 13 months, Hollywood has been rocked by a series of layoffs at the major studios.
During a two-month span from December 2008-January 2009, Disney-ABC TV cut 400 jobs, Warner Bros. axed 800 employees, Paramount slashed some 100 jobs and NBC Universal shed 500 staffers worldwide.
Monday's move comes on the heels of a record 2009 at the box office for Sony.
Still, the memo said, Sony must take the necessary steps to get through the economic downturn affecting the entertainment industry.
Pascal, who appeared in a video message on the employee website, said the studio is going through a painful time. "Our industry is affected by two things: it's affected by the economy, of course, and it's affected by technology. ... Over the last two years, it's changed people's DVD buying habits, which has had a huge effect on our company and the industry at large."
CBS News Cuts: 'Early Show' Staffers Out, Technology Correspondent Daniel Sieberg Cut
By Kevin Allocca CBS Corp. is finishing up a round of cuts of both full time and part time employees at CBS News programs and bureaus across the country. The reduction also includes not filling open positions.
Tipsters tell us that staffers in Washington DC, New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco and Miami were all cut. Nine employees ranging from producers, to electronic maintenance personnel, a secretary and a courier have been let go in Washington. Four staffers from "The Early Show" were cut as were 11 employees working in the L.A. and San Francisco bureaus.
Daniel Sieberg, CBS News Science and Technology correspondent, was laid off today. He'd been with the network for three years.
When first reported, the total number of layoffs was estimated to be around 100 staffers but a CBS insider tells us it is "considerably less" than that.
A CBS News spokesperson would not comment on the staff reductions.
More: From the NYObserver's Felix Gillette - By Monday afternoon, staffers from Washington to L.A. were sputtering in disbelief as they heard of top producers on the chopping block - particularly Mark Katkov and Jill Rosenbaum in D.C. and Roberta Hollander and Barbara Pierce in L.A. These were seasoned veterans, part of the old school known back in the Dan Rather days as "the Hard Corps."
Films Boost News Corp. Total Profit 44%
By Dylan StablefordNews Corporation reported strong earnings on Tuesday for its fiscal second quarter, a sign that the media giant is emerging from the recession.
"From crisis comes clarity," chairman and chief executive Rupert Murdoch told investors during a conference call Tuesday afternoon.
News Corp.’s operating income was $1.2 billion during the last three months of 2009, or about a 44 percent increase over the same period the year before.The company said the jump was primarily the result of growth in its film, television, cable, newspaper (including a 5 percent advertising increase at the Wall Street Journal) and book businesses, which helped offset a slide in its satellite business and a digital division that includes the problem child MySpace.
"Please excuse the immodesty," Murdoch said, referring to News Corp. as the "preeminent content" company in the world.
"Content is not only king, it is the emperor of all things electronic," he said. "Machines are not powered by batteries -- they are powered by creative ingenuity."
Murdoch touted the company’s willingness to “take prudent, creative risks like ‘Avatar’ that lead the industry forward.”
Operating income from its film segment that includes 20th Century Fox studio was $324 million, nearly tripling its $112 million from the same period in 2008. News Corp. said the results were driven by the DVD release of “Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs” and “X-Men Origins: Wolverine.”
The company stressed that the financial results largely did not include receipts from "Avatar," but did include its launch costs. "Profits will begin to flow over the next two quarters," Murdoch said.
He said News Corp. would like to release "Avatar" on DVD "as soon as possible."
"We're not going to yank it out of theaters doing $30 million a weekend," News Corp. COO Chase Carey said. However, the executives told investors not to expect a 3D "Avatar" DVD this year. "The technology is not quite there yet," Carey said.
When asked about an "Avatar" sequel, Murdoch said the company is in "very early talks about a sequel. Jim (Cameron) has ideas, but we haven't agreed on anything yet." Still, he said, "we'll be pushing for it."
Murdoch said the company was not ready to make an announcement on its much-anticipated online pay wall, but hinted one could be coming within the next "two months."
Murdoch also addressed Fox's agreement with Time Warner Cable, saying that News Corp. intends to renegotiate distribution deals with all cable operators "as contracts expire in the coming years." (Carey said that the company has 10 contracts with carriers, eight of which will be renegotiated.)
It wasn't all gravy for News Corp., though. The contribution of News Corp.'s digital media group (read: MySpace) fell $32 million “principally due to lower search and advertising revenue."
Nonetheless, Murdoch said the unit began "to see signs of traffic stabilization" under MySpace's new management team.
And as far as Conan O'Brien-to-Fox, Murdoch said he'd be interested "if we could do it and make a profit," but batted down rumors that News Corp. has been negotiating with the ex-"Tonight Show" host about a return to late night. "I'm sure there have been talks, but no negotiations."
Public Interest Groups, Cable Ops, Unions Slam Comcast/NBCU Merger
By John Eggerton -- Broadcasting & CableOrganizations raise "grave concerns;" call for tough conditions
A group of more than two dozen organizations, including cable operators, advocacy groups and unions have joined forces to slam the Comcast/NBCU merger and call for tough conditions.
In a letter to President Barack Obama and members of Congress the groups say they have "grave concerns" that the merger will have a "devastating effect" on the marketplace and give the merged company "unprecedented control" over new media outlets. The letter, which comes just short of outright opposition to the deal, levels numerous criticisms before ending with the request that the government "take a hard look at this merger and take the necessary measures to prevent harm to both consumers and competition."
Given the divergence of the group's members, that closing allows room for interpretation-outright opposition for some-or conditions so onerous that they kill the deal or, at baseline, tough conditions for others.
Comcast suggested the groups criticisms were a parade of horribles without substance. "Viewed objectively, the GE/Comcast NBCU transaction is pro-consumer and strongly in the public interest, and we look forward to making that case to Congress, the Justice Department, and the FCC," said Comcast spokeswoman Sena Fitzmaurice. "There is absolutely no evidence that this proposed transaction would produce any of the adverse effects these groups claim the deal would cause. In fact, existing law already prohibits any discrimination by Comcast against other providers regarding programming we own and would preclude Comcast from "prioritizing" NBCU channels. Further, the emerging online video market is extraordinarily competitive, with sites like YouTube, Netflix, iTunes and dozens of others already offering video from a wide range of content providers, large and small."
The letter hits most of the talking points-less choice, reduced competition, higher consumer costs-of many of the members' past criticisms of the deal. That group includes Free Press, Public Knowledge, Consumers Union, and Media Access Project.
Earlier in the week they took aim at the online industry initiative TV Everywhere, saying the merger put an "exclamation point" on their concern about control of online video."The merged giant would have strong incentives to discriminate against other multi-channel video providers in granting access to its wealth of programming, including all of its broadcast stations and 'must-have' national and regional networks that air live or same-day sporting events, as well as the market power to enforce anticompetitive "bundling," they wrote.
"The proposed deal could make it even harder for diverse and independent voices to find an audience, as Comcast would have the incentive to prioritize NBC channels and programs over others. Control of NBCU programming also would give Comcast the opportunity to prioritize its own online video products over those of its competitors - or sharply reduce online video distribution altogether - pushing independent producers out of the picture."The groups branded "merely window dressing" Comcast's public interest proposals, outlined by Comcast Executive VP David Cohen in a memo released at the time of the deal.
They said that promises to extend program access rules to broadcast and HD programming would not mitigate the potential "danger" of vertical integration or get at the concern over online video distribution. "To prevent a disastrous impact on competition and consumer choice, any approval of the merger must include meaningful conditions that extend well beyond those previously imposed on less significant mergers."
"In its ads, Comcast and NBCU ask people to 'Dream Big' but small cable operators know this deal will be a nightmare for its millions of customers without appropriate conditions," ACA President Mattt Polka said.
The coalition's move was not a big surprise.
In an interview with B&C/Multi on the eve of the merger announcement, Polka, whose group represents about 900 smaller and midsized cable operators, signaled his group could have big problems with the merger. "I am sure that we will be working with other industry and consumer groups suggesting quite aggressively the harms to consumers that will result from this [merger]," he said at the time.
The letter comes a day after the Justice Department drew the long straw in deciding whether it or the Federal Trade Commission would review the merger. Comcast is expected to file the deal for review by Justice in the next few days.
The eclectic group, which includes those opposed to the deal outright and those who have suggested it needs major government conditions, comprises American Cable Association, Center for Media Justice, Common Cause, Communications Workers of America, Concerned Women of America, Consumer Federation of America, Consumers Union, Free Press, Kids First Coalition Media Action Grassroots Network, Media Access Project, Media and Democracy Coalition, Morality in Media, National Association of Independent Networks National Consumer League, National Organization for Women, National Telecommunications Cooperative Association, Organization for the Promotion and Advancement of Small Telecommunications Companies, Parents Television Council Public Knowledge, Satellite Broadcasting and Communications Association Sports Fans Coalition, U.S. PIRG, Writers Guild of America East, Writers Guild of America West.
Groups in Opposition to Comcast/NBCU Merger Will Outline Complaints Wednesday
By John Eggerton -- Broadcasting & Cable
Groups opposing part or all of the Comcast/NBCU merger will outline their beefs in a conference call Wednesday (Feb. 3), the day before back-to-back hearings on the $30 billion deal in the House and Senate.Representatives of Media Access Project, Wealth TV (whose program carriage complaint is still pending before the FCC), the Communications Workers of America, Free Press and the American Cable Association all argued the FCC and the Justice Department need to look closely at a number of issues, including pricing, program diversity and access to programming on-air as well as online.
Comcast does not disagree that the government needs to look at those issues, but says its conclusion should be that the deal is pro-competitive and consumer-friendly. Comcast argues that they will enact voluntary conditions and existing FCC rules that protect access to, and carriage of, programming.
Affiliates Worried About Comcast Merger
By Kim McAvoy
TVNewsCheck, Feb 3 2010, 9:06 AM ET
TVNewsCheck, Feb 3 2010, 9:06 AM ET
At tomorrow's scheduled House hearing on Comcast's proposed $30 billion takeover of NBC Universal, NBC TV Affiliates Broad Chairman Michael Fiorile is expected to raise concerns about the first-ever combination of a major broadcast network and a major cable provider.
According to his prepared testimony obtained by TVNewsCheck, Fiorile will target three key issues: siphoning of key programming from the NBC to Comcast-owned cable channels; making NBC programming available on websites and local VOD platforms prior to its airing on NBC affiliates; and the affiliates' continued ability to negotiate fairly for retransmission consent fees.
Fiorile's testimony makes clear that the affiliates are not trying to crater the deal, only to win protections.
"With concrete and enforceable safeguards and conditions, this transaction should continue to serve the public interest and strengthen, not diminish the network-affiliate partnership," it says.
But the NBC affiliates are not the only broadcasters worrying about what the merger will mean to their businesses. Owners of stations that compete with NBC O&Os and affiliates are also concerned that the merger will put them at a disadvantage, particularly in markets where Comcast is a major cable provider.
These non-NBC broadcasters are expected to register their own concerns with the FCC and Justice Department just as Fiorile is expected to do tomorrow and seek their own safeguards.
In fact, the broadcasters' concerns have already seeped into the thinking of the House Communications Subcommittee.
A briefing memo for subcommittee members says: ``The transaction raises several potential issues related to the relationship between Comcast and the affiliates, including the future of the NBC network, the relative balance of power in corporate negotiations and the impact of this transaction on affiliate advertising sales."
Last December, Comcast, the nation's largest cable operator with 24 million subscribers announced plans to buy a controlling interest from General Electric in NBCU and its 26 TV stations, of which 10 are NBC O&O's.
NBCU also operates the NBC and Telemundo TV networks, 13 cable channels, a movie studio and two amusement parks.
Both the Justice Department and the FCC must sign off on the deal. And Comcast must win over the key members of Congress. Slated for tomorrow are hearings on the merger before the House Communications Subcommittee and the Senate Anti-Trust Subcommittee.
According to industry sources, ABC, CBS and Fox affiliates fear the proposed merger may give Comcast the upper hand in retransmission consent negotiations and cable carriage arrangements.
"They're very concerned about discriminatory treatment," says one insider. "There are a lot of questions. Will Comcast, to the extent it owns NBC, discriminate in favor of its owned and operated stations, and in favor of its affiliated stations?" says one long-time affiliate TV observer.
"Comcast has said all the right things publicly that you would expect. But nobody believes any of the political PR rhetoric. I would not be surprised if affiliate groups actively participate in the proceeding," he adds.
The Meredith TV group has one NBC affiliate, but operates mostly CBS and Fox affiliates.
"Certainly we want to have some degree of comfort that the new entity would not discriminate against Fox or CBS affiliates," says Paul Karpowicz, president, Local Media Group.
"I am most concerned about retransmission consent and access to the cable system. It would be unfair, for example, if I'm on ch. 5 on the cable system and all of a sudden I get relegated to 505 and the NBC stations stays at ch. 6.
"Our company is not saying we're against it, we're looking for more information and more assurances that this will be handled in a way that everybody can get comfortable with it," says the broadcast TV executive.
Karpowicz chairs the NAB TV board, but the trade group is not taking a position on the merger.
Other non-NBC affiliates think the merger might create an imbalance in the advertising market. They fear the combined sales forces of Comcast and the NBC O&Os and affiliates could put them at a serious disadvantage.
Like the NBC affiliates, the non-NBC broadcasters aren't seeking to block the deal, only to build in certain safeguards to protect them.
"I am nervously waiting to see what conditions will be imposed so we won't get hosed in any retransmission consent fight," says one.
Several of the broadcasters point to the conditions that were imposed on DirecTV when News Corp., owner of the Fox broadcast network, its O&O stations and cable networks, acquired a controlling interest in the satellite provider.
The restrictions were aimed at making sure that DirecTV did not favor Fox channels over those of independent programmers and to make sure Fox did not discriminate against cable systems or Dish Network is making content available.
And for broadcasters there was a provision mandating the use of "baseball-style arbitration" for any retransmission consent disputes with DirecTV.
the past 15 years, regulations that would have barred the merger of a full-blown broadcast network like NBC and a major cable provider have been eliminated. In 1996, the FCC under former Chairman Reed Hundt cast off the broadcast network/cable television ownership rule to conform to requirements in the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
Under the aegis of the Network Affiliated Stations Alliance, broadcast affiliates challenged the action. But that petition was denied in 1998 when the FCC was headed by Bill Kennard.
"Combinations between major networks and cable operators have not yet been formed, nor does the record reflect specific examples of potential problems," the FCC said at the time. "Accordingly, safeguards are not necessary at this time."
In 2003, the Michael Powell FCC repealed the rule prohibiting ownership of a cable system and TV station in the same market. The agency was responding to a 2002 mandate from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
According to the Fiorile testimony, the NBC affiliates' chief concern appears to be retransmission concent.
"Every NBC affiliate has two sets of bet-the-company contractual relationships," the testimony says. "The first is the affiliate's contract with its network. The second is its complement of retransmission consent contracts setting out the terms and conditions under which its signal is retransmitted on cable systems and other MVPDs. Understandably, then, any combination that would merge both of these relationships into a single entity would raise concerns about the accumulated leverage that could result from one company being the key to both of these relationships.
"For example, a combined NBC-Comcast could seek to tie together retransmission consent payments with payments for network programming provided under an affiliation agreement, or force affiliates to accept unfavorable affiliation agreement provisions to obtain market-based retransmission consent payments. In either case, the combined entity would be using its unique leverage over affiliates to undermine their ability to negotiate fair retransmission consent agreements.
"We tentatively believe that a strong set of structural separation requirements for the subsidiaries of Comcast that will negotiate retransmission consent agreements and those that will administer the network's relations with affiliates can permit the combination to go forward while minimizing concerns about maintaining market-based negotiations for retransmission consent."
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Conan O'Brien Bucks Up for Screwed Crew
by TMZ Staff
Conan O'Brien is shelling out his own cash to some ex-staffers who didn't get jack from that $7.5 million separation deal from NBC.According to sources close to production, Conan's stagehands from "The Tonight Show" were not covered by the NBC severance plan. But we're told Conan is stepping up -- promising to pay his nearly 50 person crew at least six weeks severance out of his own pocket.Conan's people had no comment.The union for his former crew -- IATSE Local 33 -- says all the members who worked with Conan are "very happy" with the way he handled the whole mess.
Conan O'Brien is shelling out his own cash to some ex-staffers who didn't get jack from that $7.5 million separation deal from NBC.According to sources close to production, Conan's stagehands from "The Tonight Show" were not covered by the NBC severance plan. But we're told Conan is stepping up -- promising to pay his nearly 50 person crew at least six weeks severance out of his own pocket.Conan's people had no comment.The union for his former crew -- IATSE Local 33 -- says all the members who worked with Conan are "very happy" with the way he handled the whole mess.
Tribune Creditors Seek To Sue Over 2007 Leveraged Buyout
By Emily Chasan
Ending a prolonged investigation of the controversial transaction, the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors petitioned U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Kevin Carey for the go-ahead to file a complaint alleging the LBO was a case of "fraudulent conveyance," meaning the deal itself made Chicago-based Tribune Co. insolvent from day one.
If the committee is allowed to file its complaint and can prove fraudulent conveyance, the judge could render invalid $8.6 billion in claims owned by the senior creditors who financed the deal, vastly increasing the value of claims held by junior creditors.
But sources on both sides of the situation said the filing of a fraudulent conveyance complaint is an expected show of muscle by the junior creditors amid negotiations that have actually gained some ground toward a settlement in recent weeks.
Executives at Tribune Co., which owns the Chicago Tribune, characterized the filing as "public posturing" intended as a negotiating tactic. In an e-mail to employees Monday, Chief Executive Randy Michaels and Chief Operating Officer Gerry Spector said "we believe a plan of reorganization acceptable to all our creditors is achievable, and the negotiations with them are active and ongoing."
At the same time, however, Tribune Co. petitioned the court to extend its exclusive right to forge a compromise plan to June 8.
In its motion, the company said it hopes to reach a settlement and file a plan before its current Feb. 28 deadline. But the company also argued that the various factions in the case continue to "jockey for tactical advantage" and that if the company's exclusive right to forge a compromise were ended too soon it "would mire these cases in protracted and contested proceedings."
At the heart of the dispute is a proposed reorganization plan that would unburden Tribune Co. by swapping a large chunk of $13 billion in debt for equity. That would transfer ownership of the company from Zell and Tribune employees to the company's creditors.
Who gets what, however, remains an open question. The owners of $8.6 billion in senior debt used to finance the LBO have argued that they should own essentially all of the company based on their seniority. But by pressing the fraudulent conveyance claim against them, junior creditors are fighting to carve out as big a slice as possible for themselves.
Seeking to wrest control of the case last November, several large senior creditors, including investment funds Angelo Gordon & Co. and Oaktree Capital Management, opposed Tribune Co.'s previous request to extend exclusivity. Engaging in some muscle flexing themselves, they offered an alternative plan that would circumvent the fraudulent conveyance claim and leave the junior creditors with essentially nothing.
The bondholders, including Law Debenture Trust Co. of New York and Centerbridge Credit Advisors, hold most of the debentures issued in 1996, which are due in 2027 and 2096. The hedge funds include Anchorage Advisors LLC, Contrarian Funds LLC, KKR Strategic Capital Holdings I LP and Latigo Master Fund Ltd.
Should Centerbridge and Law Debenture prove the buyout was a so-called fraudulent transfer, they could be paid before the lenders. Shareholders may be forced to return some of the money and board members could be held liable for authorizing the transfer, under the bankruptcy code.
The case is In re Tribune Co., 08-13141, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, District of Delaware (Wilmington).
Reuters
NEW YORK, Feb 1 (Reuters) - Creditors of bankrupt U.S. newspaper publisher Tribune Co (TRBCQ.PK) are seeking approval to sue the parties involved with the company's 2007 leveraged buyout, according to court papers on Monday.
According to a motion filed in the U.S. bankruptcy court in Delaware, the company's official committee of unsecured creditors is seeking approval to file a draft of its proposed complaint so it may begin to deal with claims arising out of the buyout.
The publisher of the Chicago Tribune and Los Angeles Times filed for bankruptcy in December 2008 after going private in an $8.2 billion deal led by real estate magnate Sam Zell that resulted in the company having $13 billion in debt.
Zell resigned as chief executive last month after two years at the helm, but remains chairman.
Separately, Tribune asked the bankruptcy court for an extension of its time to have the exclusive right to file its reorganization plan. It said it is working to file the plan before Feb. 28.
"We are nearing the date when we will file plan, but we are asking to extend our period of exclusivity to June 8, 2010, so that we can keep everyone focused on getting to one solution," the company wrote in an internal memo to employees. The memo was obtained by Reuters from a source involved with the matter but unauthorized to share an internal company memo.
"Also today, the UCC filed a motion asking for the right to bring litigation regarding claims of fraudulent conveyance related to Tribune's 2007 going-private transaction. It is not unusual for creditors in a bankruptcy to pursue negotiations and litigation simultaneously; litigation is often part of a negotiating strategy," the memo said.
Tribune, whose properties also include 23 local television stations, had run into some resistance from lenders last year when it sought a similar extension.
Its lenders had said then they wanted to offer their own plan to reorganize the company.
A court hearing on the two requests is set for Feb. 18.
The case is In re: Tribune Company, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, District of Delaware, No. 08-13141. (Additional reporting by Robert Macmillan; editing by Carol Bishopric and Ian Geoghegan)
According to a motion filed in the U.S. bankruptcy court in Delaware, the company's official committee of unsecured creditors is seeking approval to file a draft of its proposed complaint so it may begin to deal with claims arising out of the buyout.The publisher of the Chicago Tribune and Los Angeles Times filed for bankruptcy in December 2008 after going private in an $8.2 billion deal led by real estate magnate Sam Zell that resulted in the company having $13 billion in debt.
Zell resigned as chief executive last month after two years at the helm, but remains chairman.
Separately, Tribune asked the bankruptcy court for an extension of its time to have the exclusive right to file its reorganization plan. It said it is working to file the plan before Feb. 28.
"We are nearing the date when we will file plan, but we are asking to extend our period of exclusivity to June 8, 2010, so that we can keep everyone focused on getting to one solution," the company wrote in an internal memo to employees. The memo was obtained by Reuters from a source involved with the matter but unauthorized to share an internal company memo.
"Also today, the UCC filed a motion asking for the right to bring litigation regarding claims of fraudulent conveyance related to Tribune's 2007 going-private transaction. It is not unusual for creditors in a bankruptcy to pursue negotiations and litigation simultaneously; litigation is often part of a negotiating strategy," the memo said.
Tribune, whose properties also include 23 local television stations, had run into some resistance from lenders last year when it sought a similar extension.
Its lenders had said then they wanted to offer their own plan to reorganize the company.
A court hearing on the two requests is set for Feb. 18.
The case is In re: Tribune Company, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, District of Delaware, No. 08-13141. (Additional reporting by Robert Macmillan; editing by Carol Bishopric and Ian Geoghegan)
Unsecured Creditors Seek To Challenge Tribune Co. Buyout
Petition asks for permission to file complaint alleging 'fraudulent conveyance'
By Michael Oneal, Tribune reporter
The unsecured creditors in Tribune Co.'s Chapter 11 bankruptcy case sought permission Monday to officially challenge the legality of Sam Zell's 2007 leveraged buyout of the company, turning up the heat to either settle the case or pitch it into extended litigation.
Ending a prolonged investigation of the controversial transaction, the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors petitioned U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Kevin Carey for the go-ahead to file a complaint alleging the LBO was a case of "fraudulent conveyance," meaning the deal itself made Chicago-based Tribune Co. insolvent from day one.
If the committee is allowed to file its complaint and can prove fraudulent conveyance, the judge could render invalid $8.6 billion in claims owned by the senior creditors who financed the deal, vastly increasing the value of claims held by junior creditors.
But sources on both sides of the situation said the filing of a fraudulent conveyance complaint is an expected show of muscle by the junior creditors amid negotiations that have actually gained some ground toward a settlement in recent weeks.
Executives at Tribune Co., which owns the Chicago Tribune, characterized the filing as "public posturing" intended as a negotiating tactic. In an e-mail to employees Monday, Chief Executive Randy Michaels and Chief Operating Officer Gerry Spector said "we believe a plan of reorganization acceptable to all our creditors is achievable, and the negotiations with them are active and ongoing."
At the same time, however, Tribune Co. petitioned the court to extend its exclusive right to forge a compromise plan to June 8.
In its motion, the company said it hopes to reach a settlement and file a plan before its current Feb. 28 deadline. But the company also argued that the various factions in the case continue to "jockey for tactical advantage" and that if the company's exclusive right to forge a compromise were ended too soon it "would mire these cases in protracted and contested proceedings."
At the heart of the dispute is a proposed reorganization plan that would unburden Tribune Co. by swapping a large chunk of $13 billion in debt for equity. That would transfer ownership of the company from Zell and Tribune employees to the company's creditors.
Who gets what, however, remains an open question. The owners of $8.6 billion in senior debt used to finance the LBO have argued that they should own essentially all of the company based on their seniority. But by pressing the fraudulent conveyance claim against them, junior creditors are fighting to carve out as big a slice as possible for themselves.
Seeking to wrest control of the case last November, several large senior creditors, including investment funds Angelo Gordon & Co. and Oaktree Capital Management, opposed Tribune Co.'s previous request to extend exclusivity. Engaging in some muscle flexing themselves, they offered an alternative plan that would circumvent the fraudulent conveyance claim and leave the junior creditors with essentially nothing.
An attorney for the group wouldn't comment when asked if it would contest Tribune Co.'s latest requesrequest for an extension. But parties have time to file new objections before a Feb. 18 hearing on the matter.
Hedge funds holding about $4.4 billion of the LBO debt opposed Tribune’s last request for more time. They have proposed that lenders, including the hedge funds, take over Tribune’s television and newspaper operations in return for canceling $8.5 billion they are owed.
The LBO dispute pits bondholders owed as much as $1.26 billion against the hedge funds, other lenders and their agent JPMorgan Chase Bank NA.
The bondholders, including Law Debenture Trust Co. of New York and Centerbridge Credit Advisors, hold most of the debentures issued in 1996, which are due in 2027 and 2096. The hedge funds include Anchorage Advisors LLC, Contrarian Funds LLC, KKR Strategic Capital Holdings I LP and Latigo Master Fund Ltd.
Should Centerbridge and Law Debenture prove the buyout was a so-called fraudulent transfer, they could be paid before the lenders. Shareholders may be forced to return some of the money and board members could be held liable for authorizing the transfer, under the bankruptcy code.
The case is In re Tribune Co., 08-13141, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, District of Delaware (Wilmington).
Friday, January 29, 2010
IATSE Local One Announcement: The Passing of Brother Patrick D. Ryan
The Passing of Brother Patrick D. Ryan
Dear Brothers and Sisters,
It is with a deep sense of sadness and regret that I must report to you the passing of our Brother Patrick D. Ryan on January 27, 2010. Brother Ryan worked throughout the jurisdiction most notably at CBS. Brother Ryan was initiated into Local One in 1999. He will be missed by family and friends alike. May he rest in peace.
It is with a deep sense of sadness and regret that I must report to you the passing of our Brother Patrick D. Ryan on January 27, 2010. Brother Ryan worked throughout the jurisdiction most notably at CBS. Brother Ryan was initiated into Local One in 1999. He will be missed by family and friends alike. May he rest in peace.
Fraternally,
Robert C. Score
Recording-Corresponding Secretary
Reposing:
Robert C. Score
Recording-Corresponding Secretary
Reposing:
Sunday, January 31, 2010, 2:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.
and 7:00 p.m. to 9:00p.m.
Barrett's Funeral Home
424 West 51st Street
New York, NY 10019
212-265-0335
Funeral service:
Monday, February 1, 2010, 11:15 a.m.
St. Peter's Cemetery,
New Brunswick, New Jersey
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Mid-level managers bonuses approved at Tribune Co., No decision yet for top execs
Mid-level Managers Bonuses Approved At Tribune Co., No Decision Yet For Top Execs
Judge Kevin Carey approved $45.6 million in bonuses for some 700 Tribune Company executives today (Jan 27) in federal bankruptcy court in Wilmington.
However, the judge took no action on two other components of the bonus program which would have meant more than $20 million more in bonuses for top corporate management.
Supported by other unions and the U.S. Trustee, the Washington-Baltimore Newspaper Guild (WBNG) objected to the proposed bonuses. Tribune, currently undergoing reorganization through a Chapter 11 bankruptcy process, has about $13 billion in debt.
The following statement was issued by M. William Salganik, past president of WBNG and its representative to the Tribune credtiors' committee.
We're disappointed that the judge has approved the first level of bonuses. Tribune is paying out the largest amount ever through this bonus - more than triple the amount it paid for 2008.
At the same time, operating cash flow is the lowest since the program started in 1997 - down more than one-third from 2008. We think it is too generous for the circumstances this year, and we believe that cash should be conserved to pay creditors and to invest in the business.
However, we're pleased that the judge has not approved the remaining two levels of extra payouts to top executives, which are much more generous than the "regular" bonuses.
We're glad that the objections by the Guild and other unions, and by the United States Trustee, has led the judge to give this bonus program such scrutiny.
We believe these bonuses are excessive for Tribune at this time. We hope the judge ultimately agrees.
Not just for Tribune, as it tries to emerge from bankruptcy, but for the economy as a whole, it's important to examine the role that executive bonuses should play.
The Guild believes companies that use an executive bonus program need to make sure it is truly tied to performance, and that the program provides the proper set of incentives.
In Tribune's case, the program rewards cash flow, not revenue, and the executives exceeded their targets through an aggressive program of shrinking the products and the workforce. We don't believe this is a good long-term business plan.
Finally, although Tribune says its executives wouldn't be motivated to work hard without bonuses, we think more highly of our bosses. While we sometimes disagree with them, we think they're dedicated professionals who would do their best with or without bonuses -- just as thousands of non-executive employees are working hard for Tribune every day with no bonuses.
Visit the web address below to tell your friends about this.
Tell-a-friend! http://www.unionvoice.org/join-forward.html?domain=cwa_action&r=W7z_1ipqqk8L
Contact: Bill Salganik, 410-964-5125, 410-245-6520 (mobile)
Judge OKs $45.6 Million in Bonuses for Tribune Execs
Jan 27, 2010
Top executives at the Tribune Co., parent company of the Chicago Tribune and the Los Angeles Times, will receive more than $45 million in bonuses following a court ruling Wednesday.
U.S. Bankruptcy Court Judge Kevin Carey in Wilmington, Del., approved a plan for the media giant to pay 720 company executives bonuses as early as February, the largest such payout in company history. He did not decide whether an additional $21 million could be paid to Tribune’s top brass.
In 2007, real estate entrepreneur Sam Zell took Tribune Co. private in a highly leveraged $8 billion deal. Tribune filed for Ch. 11 bankruptcy protection the following year.
There have been several rounds of layoffs and salary freezes at Tribune properties since the December 2008 bankruptcy filing. The Los Angeles Times cut 300 jobs in 2009 and announced it would eliminate an additional 80 jobs this month.
“I think it’s unconscionable,” said Alan Mutter, a former editor at the Chicago Sun-Times who now blogs about the industry. Given the number of jobs that have been cut and the erosion of news coverage in communities served by Tribune, Mutter said the bonuses for top management are unwarranted. “I don’t see anything here that’s bonus worthy,” he said.
The decision also was met with strong disapproval from the Washington-Baltimore Newspaper Guild, one of Tribune’s unions. Although Tribune recently announced its cash flow approached $500 million in 2009, former Guild President M. William Salganik said the bonuses were inappropriate given Tribune’s unresolved debt.
“We think it is too generous for the circumstances this year, and we believe that cash should be conserved to pay creditors and to invest in the business,” Salganik said.
Help Stop Sam Zell And Tribune's Outrageous Abuse Of Corporate Power.
U.S. Bankruptcy Court Judge Kevin J. Carey approved $ 45 million dollars in bonuses for Tribune executives today.
He has not yet ruled on an additional $21.4 million dollars in additional bonuses for top Tribune executives.
Contact Judge Carey and tell him that this bonus plan is a slap in the face to the people who produce the newspapers and keep the TV stations on the air to create the income that Tribune is distributing as bonuses to management.
No More Bonuses!
Contact Judge Kevin J. Carey at:
Chambers of the Honorable Kevin J. Carey,
Chief Judge U.S. Bankruptcy Court Wilmington, Del
5th Floor, Courtroom #5824
North Market Street
Wilmington, DE 19801
Call Judge Carey at: 302-252-2927
Don't wait, Judge Carey plans to make a decision this week on whether to allow Tribune to pay an additional $21.4 million dollars on top of the $45 million dollars in executive bonuses already approved.
In Solidarity,
Bob D
Judge Approves $45.6 Million In Tribune Co. Bonuses
U.S. Bankruptcy Court Judge Kevin Carey approved a contested $45.6 million Tribune Co. bonus pool On Wednesday morning. This first executive bonus pool, one of three bonus plans requested by Tribune, is to be divided among a group of 720 managers and executives throughout the company.The move comes after the Chicago-based media conglomerate last week asked U.S. Bankruptcy Court Judge Kevin Carey to consider the management bonuses separately from two other proposed bonus plans in hopes that the company could distribute checks as early as next month.
The Washington-Baltimore Newspaper Guild and the U.S. Bankruptcy Trustee have objected to all three bonus plans. Judge Carey overruled the objections in this instance but has yet to rule on the other two plans, which would deliver another $21.4 million to Tribune Co. top executives.
Bill Salganik, a past guild president and a member of a committee representing unsecured creditors in Tribune Co.'s bankruptcy, said the unions are glad the judge reserved judgment on what he called the two 'big bucks" bonus plans.
But "we still think the so-called annual bonuses are too high," he said.
The Guild was joined in its objection by the U.S. trustee, two Baltimore-based Teamsters locals, and the Newspaper Guild of New York, which represents 29 employees at television station WPIX.
Tribune Co. has argued the incentives the judge passed are necessary to motivate and reward the employees included in the bonus pools as well as make the media conglomerate's compensation plans competitive with the rest of the industry.
Moreover, the plan approved by the judge has been in place for years in one form or another, the company has said.
But the union has countered with several points.
First, only a small percentage of Tribune Co. employees are included in the bonus pools. Second, while the bonus plan has existed for years, it was altered by current management to be more generous, despite the company's weak performance and continuing bankruptcy.
In a strong year like 2008, for instance, Tribune Co. paid out $13.4 million in bonuses, or roughly 1.3 percent of cash flow, the union has argued. This year, it will pay $45.6 million, or almost 10 percent of cash flow.
"There has never been a plan like this one: an unprecedented payout of millions of dollars to a smaller number of executives during a year in which employee salaries were frozen "to share the sacrifice" and there was an historic low in operating cash flow," the guild argued in its objection.
Tribune, which owns the Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune, The Baltimore Sun and other dailies, along with 23 TV stations, filed for bankruptcy protection in December 2008 because of dwindling advertising revenues and a crushing debt load of $13 billion. Much of that debt was amassed when real estate mogul Sam Zell took the company private in 2007.
In July, Tribune Co. petitioned the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for permission to pay out bonuses through three performance-based plans. The largest in dollar amount was the company's normal incentive bonus plan for top and middle managers. But the other two would pay much more per capita to a group of about 20 top managers, who are also included in the first plan.
Tribune Co. originally requested that Carey rule on all three plans together. On the same day last week that the company said it was willing to have the court "bifurcate" its ruling so the bonuses for the larger group of recipients might be expedited, Tribune Co. Chief Executive Randy Michaels informed employees that the company had generated cash flow of nearly $500 million during 2009 "thanks to a stronger-than-expected performance by both the broadcasting and publishing groups in the fourth quarter."
A Tribune Co. spokesman said at the time that this meant cash flow exceeded the original plan by 200 percent, meaning bonuses for the group of 720 would come in at a maximum of $45.6 million, if approved.
The unexpectedly strong results were largely due to a year of aggressive cost cutting, including layoffs, but Michaels' note also said that lower newsprint costs and a slightly better economy helped.
The ruling Wednesday's clears the way for the checks worth tens of millions of dollars to be distributed next month.
In approving the incentive plan, Carey said that Tribune is operating in a troubled industry which has seen roughly a dozen large media companies seek bankruptcy protection.
"Here, the evidence demonstrates that the debtor was performing well relative to its competitors," Carey said. "I conclude that the relief requested is justified by the facts and circumstances of the case."
Tribune Union Opposes $46 Million in Manager Bonuses
By Steven Church, www.bloomberg.com with additional material by Michael Oneal, Tribune reporterJan. 26 (Bloomberg) -- Tribune Co. should be blocked from paying managers as much as $45.6 million in bonuses, The Newspaper Guild, one of the bankrupt newspaper publisher’s unions said in court papers.
The proposed bonus pool is “excessive by any measure,” because it comes when the company is experiencing a historic low in cash flow, attorneys for the Washington-Baltimore Newspaper Guild wrote in an objection filed today in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Wilmington, Delaware.
“It seems way too generous for the circumstances this year,” said Bill Salganik, a past president of the guild and a member of a committee of unsecured creditors involved in Tribune’s bankruptcy.
Lawyers for the company are scheduled to be in court tomorrow before U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Kevin Carey to defend the so-called management incentive plan, part of an annual bonus paid out since at least 1997, according to court papers.
Acting U.S. Trustee Robert DeAngelis also opposes the bonus plans, lawyers for DeAngelis said today in a court filing. The trustee’s office is an arm of the Justice Department that oversees bankruptcy cases.
Tribune, based in Chicago, filed for bankruptcy court protection in December 2008, about a year after real-estate billionaire Sam Zell’s $8.3 billion purchase of the publishing and television company. Tribune owns the Los Angeles Times and the namesake Chicago newspaper among other properties.
In July, Tribune Co., owner of the Chicago Tribune, petitioned the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Delaware for permission to pay from $21.5 million to about $67 million in bonuses through three separate performance-based plans.
The biggest was a continuation of Tribune Co.'s normal incentive bonus plan for both top and middle managers. The other two would reward a group of around 20 top managers for either navigating the bankruptcy process or "transforming" their business units.
A group of company unions objected to the request at a September court hearing, calling the bonuses top-heavy and too easy to earn. U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Kevin Carey has yet to rule as he prepares a formal opinion on the matter.
Tribune Co. had originally requested that Carey rule on all three plans together. But on Wednesday, the company said it would be willing to have the court "bifurcate" its ruling so that the larger group of more than 700 managers could be rewarded in February for their 2009 performance.
In a separate note to employees Wednesday, Tribune Co. CEO Randy Michaels said that the company generated almost $500 million in cash flow during the year "thanks to a stronger-than-expected performance by both the broadcasting and publishing groups in the fourth quarter." The results owe much to cost-cutting efforts, but Michaels noted that lower newsprint costs and a slightly better economy also helped.
A spokesman said that level of cash flow exceeded the 200 percent threshold, meaning bonuses for the group of 720 would come in at a maximum of $45.6 million if approved. If the judge also approved the other two plans, they would pay out around $21 million to a much smaller group.
Tribune attorney Jonathan D. Lotsoff didn’t immediately return a call seeking comment.
The bonuses are part of a broader incentive package that includes three separate pieces that could cost the company as much as $66 million. The union has opposed all three components since they were first proposed last fall.
The bonus proposal is tied to annual cash flow and could drain almost 11 percent of Tribune’s operating cash, the union said in court papers.
At a hearing in September, Tribune lawyers said the bonuses were necessary to keep managers motivated during troubled economic times.
The case is In re Tribune Co., 08-13141, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, District of Delaware (Wilmington).
To contact the reporter on this story: Steven Church in Wilmington, Delaware, at schurch3@bloomberg.net.
Other unions with collective bargaining agreements with Tribune are expected join the Newspaper Guild in protesting the Tribune executive bonus plans. It is easy for corporations to generate a short term cash flow increase, if you layoff thousands of employees and don't care about the damage this and other operating cost cutting initiatives do to your products.This bonus plan is a slap in the face to the people who produce the newspapers and keep the TV stations on the air to create the income that Tribune is distributing as bonuses to management.
Contact Judge Kevin J. Carey at:
Chambers of the Honorable Kevin J. Carey, Chief Judge
U.S. Bankruptcy Court Wilmington, Del
5th Floor, Courtroom #5
824 North Market StreetWilmington, DE 19801
Call the Judge at: 302-252-2927
Don't wait, Judge Carey plans to make a decision on whether to allow Tribune to pay $45 million dollars in executive bonuses by the end of this week.
In solidarity,
Bob D
Monday, January 25, 2010
Time to Protest Tribune Executive Bonuses, The Judge Wants To Hear Objections NOW
Hi All,
Now would be a good time for all the unions with Tribune collective bargaining agreements to contact the bankruptcy court to protest this outrageous executive bonus plan.
This bonus plan is a slap in the face to the people who produce the newspapers and keep the TV stations on the air to create the income that Tribune is distributing as bonuses to management.
The case is: re Tribune Co., 08-13141, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, District Delaware (Wilmington).
Contact Judge Kevin J. Carey at:
Chambers of the Honorable Kevin J. Carey, Chief Judge
U.S. Bankruptcy Court Wilmington, Del
5th Floor, Courtroom #5
824 North Market Street
Wilmington, DE 19801
302-252-2927
Bankruptcy Judge Set To Give Tribune Co. Executives $45 Million in Bonuses
By Gillian Reagan
http://www.businessinsider.com/
Now would be a good time for all the unions with Tribune collective bargaining agreements to contact the bankruptcy court to protest this outrageous executive bonus plan.
This bonus plan is a slap in the face to the people who produce the newspapers and keep the TV stations on the air to create the income that Tribune is distributing as bonuses to management.
The case is: re Tribune Co., 08-13141, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, District Delaware (Wilmington).
Contact Judge Kevin J. Carey at:
Chambers of the Honorable Kevin J. Carey, Chief Judge
U.S. Bankruptcy Court Wilmington, Del
5th Floor, Courtroom #5
824 North Market Street
Wilmington, DE 19801
302-252-2927
Bankruptcy Judge Set To Give Tribune Co. Executives $45 Million in BonusesBy Gillian Reagan
http://www.businessinsider.com/
The bankrupt Tribune Co. wants to give up to $45 million in bonuses to hundreds of their managers.
A bankruptcy judge in Delaware is waiting for objections to their proposal and is set to make a final decision this week.
This summer, several organizations objected against the company's original proposal for $70 million in bonuses for executives. The Newspaper Guild wrote at the time:
"The proposed bonuses to top executives are excessive and may, in fact, have a detrimental effect on motivating others who contribute to the bottom line. Indeed, the payment of disproportionate bonuses to a select group of executives may have the opposite effect on the rank-and-file employees."
"Incentivizing employees is essential to Tribune's future success. We must continue motivating our people to overcome obstacles, achieve our performance goals and take the company to the next level," the Tribune's COO Randy Michaels wrote the court in a letter.
The Chicago-based Tribune Co., which owns 25 television stations and major newspapers including the Los Angeles Times and the Chicago Tribune, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2008.
They faced what chairman Sam Zell called a “perfect storm” of forces troubling the media industry, along with $13 billion in debt.
According to the AP, Tribune Co. attorneys told the judge last Wednesday that the bonuses are typically paid in February and asked that they be considered separately from two other incentive plans the company has proposed
Sam Zell And Tribune Management Screwed His Employees
by Henry Blodget
There was some suggestion that Sam Zell was feeling the company's pain when he put Tribune into bankruptcy last year: He put $315 million of his own money into the buyout, after all ($315 million of $13 billion of debt), and surely he had just lost it. Well, don't go crying for Sam just yet.
Sam's $315 million didn't go to buy Tribune stock, which will likely end up nearly worthless. Sam's $315 million went for subordinated debt with a warrant to buy 40% of the company if and when he chose to do so.
For obvious reasons, Sam hasn't chosen to do so. This means that Sam is standing far ahead of common shareholders in the line as the company gets chopped up.
And who are those common shareholders? Tribune employees, of course.
And how did Tribune employees end up owning the stock?
Because Sam Zell financed the buyout deal partially by borrowing against the employees pension plan and using this money to buy them stock.
Tribune employees will now get demolished, while Sam and the company's other creditors divide up the assets. Sam probably won't get out whole, but he could end up not losing much, either. Especially since the Tribune is still generating cash (the bankruptcy was triggered by the company's earnings falling below a specified level, not by a default).
The NYT's Andrew Ross Sorkin explains:
"Mr. Zell financed much of his deal’s $13 billion of debt by borrowing against part of the future of his employees’ pension plan and taking a huge tax advantage. Tribune employees ended up with equity, and now they will probably be left with very little." (The good news: any pension money put aside before the deal remains for the employees.)
As Mr. Newman, an analyst at CreditSights, explained at the time: “If there is a problem with the company, most of the risk is on the employees, as Zell will not own Tribune shares.” He continued: “The cash will come from the sweat equity of the employees of Tribune.”
And so it is...
Mr. Zell isn’t the only one responsible for this debacle. With one of the grand old names of American journalism now confronting an uncertain future, it is worth remembering all the people who mismanaged the company before hand and helped orchestrate this ill-fated deal — and made a lot of money in the process.
They include members of the Tribune board, the company’s management and the bankers who walked away with millions of dollars for financing and advising on a transaction that many of them knew, or should have known, could end in ruin.
It was Tribune’s board that sold the company to Mr. Zell — and allowed him to use the employee’s pension plan to do so. Despite early resistance, Dennis J. FitzSimons, then the company’s chief executive, backed the plan. He was paid about $17.7 million in severance and other payments. The sale also bought all the shares he owned — $23.8 million worth. The day he left, he said in a note to employees that “completing this ‘going private’ transaction is a great outcome for our shareholders, employees and customers.”
Well, at least for some of them.
Tribune’s board was advised by a group of bankers from Citigroup and Merrill Lynch, which walked off with $35.8 million and $37 million, respectively. But those banks played both sides of the deal: they also lent Mr. Zell the money to buy the company. For that, they shared an additional $47 million pot of fees with several other banks, according to Thomson Reuters. And then there was Morgan Stanley, which wrote a “fairness opinion” blessing the deal, for which it was paid a $7.5 million fee (plus an additional $2.5 million advisory fee).
On top of that, a firm called the Valuation Research Corporation wrote a “solvency opinion” suggesting that Tribune could meet its debt covenants. Thomson Reuters, which tracks fees, estimates V.R.C. was paid $1 million for that opinion. V.R.C. was so enamored with its role that it put out a press release.
I think Tribune's assertion that "incentivizing employees is essential to Tribune's future success," apparantly only applies to their already highly compensated executives and does not take in to account the damage this action will cause to the rest of Tribune's employees.
According to Andy Zipzer, editor of the Guild Reporter; "The best employees are motivated to do their best for a variety of reasons that have less to do with money and more to do with loyalty to the employer, pride in one's work, and a sense of responsibility."
I concur; loyalty, sacrifice, and responsibility is what Tribune management expects from the non-executive employees, how can they expect less from the corporate leadership? Handing out bonuses to the few, while cutting the pay and benefits of the rest, serves only to erode the employee loyalty and support that is vital to saving Tribune.
Don't let Sam Zell add insult to injury. Don't let Sam give $ 45 million dollars in bonuses to executives while the rest of Tribune's employees endure, pay and benefit cuts, massive layoffs, with nothing but more of the same to look forward to.
The case is: re Tribune Co., 08-13141, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, District Delaware (Wilmington).
Contact Judge Kevin J. Carey at:
Chambers of the Honorable Kevin J. Carey, Chief Judge
U.S. Bankruptcy Court Wilmington, Del
5th Floor, Courtroom #5
824 North Market Street, Wilmington, DE 19801
Call the Judge at: 302-252-2927
Don't wait, Judge Carey plans to make a decision on whether to allow Tribune to pay $45 million dollars in executive bonuses by the end of this week.
In solidarity,
Bob D
Labor Leadership Skills Certificate
Cornell Labor Leadership Skills training is designed for current and future leaders in labor and non-profit organizations. These workshops focus on skills useful to new or developing leaders. These skills-based online workshops help deepen the knowledge needed to build and re-build strong and effective organizations.
Online workshops are of three weeks duration based on 3.3 hours per week for a total of 10 contact hours (1.0 CEU).
Online workshops are of three weeks duration based on 3.3 hours per week for a total of 10 contact hours (1.0 CEU).
These online workshops require access to the internet and email. Participants are expected to log in on at least 6 different days over the three week period.
These workshops include group projects and role plays to encourage participation and interaction with help from guest instructors from labor, academic, and labor relations professionals.
Participants successfully completing six different workshops receive a Labor Leadership Skills certificate from Cornell ILR.
2010 Online Workshops
Steward Training/Contract Administration: February 8-28, 2010
Effective Communication: March 8-28, 2010
Conflict Resolution: April 5-25, 2010
Negotiation Skills: May 3-23, 2010
Costing Out Contracts: June 7-27, 2010
Motivation and Productivity: August 9 – 29, 2010
Advanced Negotiation Skills: September 7-27, 2010
Running Effective Meetings: October 4 – 24, 2010
Strategic Action Planning: November 1 – 21, 2010
Grievance Writing: December 1 – 21, 2010
Online Workshop Fee: $300 (10% discount for unions sending 3 or more)
Who Will Benefit? Who Should Attend?
These workshops are applicable to non-profit organizations, community activists, union members, bargaining committee members and staff wishing to improve their leadership skills and improve the labor relations climate in the workplace.
The on-line workshops are designed to have participants check the website three times per week for three weeks. The total time commitment is 10 hours spread out over three weeks. Access to the Blackboard website is available 24 hours/ 7 days per week for three weeks (You log-on when you want, anytime).
To Register:
Click HERE to download the printable form
2010 Online Workshops
Steward Training/Contract Administration: February 8-28, 2010
Effective Communication: March 8-28, 2010
Conflict Resolution: April 5-25, 2010
Negotiation Skills: May 3-23, 2010
Costing Out Contracts: June 7-27, 2010
Motivation and Productivity: August 9 – 29, 2010
Advanced Negotiation Skills: September 7-27, 2010
Running Effective Meetings: October 4 – 24, 2010
Strategic Action Planning: November 1 – 21, 2010
Grievance Writing: December 1 – 21, 2010
Online Workshop Fee: $300 (10% discount for unions sending 3 or more)
Who Will Benefit? Who Should Attend?
These workshops are applicable to non-profit organizations, community activists, union members, bargaining committee members and staff wishing to improve their leadership skills and improve the labor relations climate in the workplace.
The on-line workshops are designed to have participants check the website three times per week for three weeks. The total time commitment is 10 hours spread out over three weeks. Access to the Blackboard website is available 24 hours/ 7 days per week for three weeks (You log-on when you want, anytime).
To Register:
Click HERE to download the printable form
E-mail Cornell On-Line Training at: ilr-online-training@cornell.edu
Friday, January 22, 2010
DOJ Orders Newspaper Merger Breakup
RBR-TVBR ReportIn the same week that MediaNews Group announced plans to file Chapter 11 for its newspaper holding company, Affiliated Media, it’s been ordered by the US Department of Justice (DOJ) to re-enter the daily newspaper business in Charleston, WV.
The DOJ announced that it has reached a proposed settlement with the Daily Gazette Company and MediaNews Group that requires the companies to restructure their newspaper joint operating arrangement and take other steps to remedy the anticompetitive effects of a 2004 transaction, which the DOJ charged was “part of a plan by the Daily Gazette Company to terminate publication of the Charleston Daily Mail and leave Charleston with a single daily newspaper, the Charleston Gazette.”
Three years after the transaction, in May 2007, DOJ filed a civil antitrust lawsuit alleging that the transaction violated the Clayton and Sherman Acts by consolidating ownership and control of the only two local daily newspapers in Charleston, W.Va., under the Daily Gazette Company and eliminating competition between them. Previously, the two newspapers had been separately owned and controlled, while operating under a joint operating agreement (JOA).
Under the new settlement, MediaNews Group will regain independent control over the operations of the Charleston Daily Mail and economic incentives to grow the newspaper. Additionally, the settlement requires the companies to offer substantial discounts of the Charleston Daily Mail in order to rebuild its subscriber base and prohibits the Daily Gazette Company from discriminating against the Charleston Daily Mail in circulation, advertising sales, and other key joint activities. The settlement also requires the companies to continue publishing the Charleston Daily Mail as long as it has not failed financially.
"Today's settlement resolves the department's antitrust concerns and allows readers to continue to have a choice between two independent local daily newspapers – the Charleston Gazette and the Charleston Daily Mail," said Christine Varney, Assistant Attorney General in charge of DOJ’s Antitrust Division.
The proposed settlement has been filed in US District Court in Charleston, WV.
Comment: One wonders if this ruling will effect ongoing complaints about similar practices in television broadcasting. -BD
Wakeup Call for Democratic Party Leadership
In case anyone is still uncertain about why pissing off rank and file union members is a bad idea, a Hart Research Associates poll conducted for the AFL-CIO found that:
49% of Massachusetts union households voted for Mr. Brown, while 46% supported Democrat Martha Coakley.
Margin by which union members voted in MA-Sen on Tuesday:
Scott Brown: 49% Martha Coakley: 46%
This wakeup call for the Democratic party leadership could not be more clear, if you want labor's support in the 2010 elections, best to get moving on EFCA and the other worker's rights issues that have been ignored by Democrats for too long. -BD
49% of Massachusetts union households voted for Mr. Brown, while 46% supported Democrat Martha Coakley.
Margin by which union members voted in MA-Sen on Tuesday:
Scott Brown: 49% Martha Coakley: 46%
This wakeup call for the Democratic party leadership could not be more clear, if you want labor's support in the 2010 elections, best to get moving on EFCA and the other worker's rights issues that have been ignored by Democrats for too long. -BD
Conan, NBC Sign $45 million Dollar Exit Deal With $12 Million To Go To Staff
NBC Universal has announced the details of Conan O’Brien's , exit from “The Tonight Show”. Conan's last "Tonight" will air on Friday, Jan. 22, 2010, ending a seven month run. Jay Leno, who began hosting a 10 p.m. show on NBC in September, will return to his former duties as host of "The Tonight Show".NBC and O'Brien agreed on a $45 million deal, with Conan receiving $33 million dollars in return for a promise to stay off the broadcast TV airwaves for eight months. The $12 million dollar balance will go towards severance packages for Conan's "Tonight Show" staff. A big thank you to Conan is in order for holding out until NBC agreed to take care of his crew.
On March 1, 2010, Jay Leno will return to hosting "The Tonight Show" following NBC's Winter Olympics coverage. “Late Night with Jimmy Fallon” will continue in the 12:35-1:35 a.m. slot
Jeff Gaspin, Chairman, NBC Universal Television Entertainment said: “We’re pleased that Jay is returning to host the franchise that he helmed brilliantly and successfully for many years. He is an enormous talent, a consummate professional and one of the hardest-working performers on television.”
Conan leaves NBC with his head up and we'll remember that he took care of his people when the chips were down. I'm sure Conan will land on his feet, and with a $33 million dollar severance, we won't have to through him a benefit any time soon. - BD
Thursday, January 21, 2010
NYS Budget Proposal Extends Film Tax Credit
By Miriam Kreinin Souccar
The item still needs approval from the State Senate and Assembly, but film executives are confident the rebate program will pass.
The New York film community is breathing a sigh of relief today.
In the 2010 budget proposal released by Gov. Paterson Tuesday, he expanded the film tax credit to $420 million a year from $350 million and extended the program through 2014. The move comes after months of intense lobbying from the film production industry, which has seen business skyrocket since the tax credits were introduced in 2004.
“It’s validation for the work all of us have done to make this program the success that it is,” said Hal Rosenbluth, president of Kaufman Astoria Studios, which is opening a 40,000-square-foot sound stage and support facility next month, the studio’s seventh stage. “The governor is seeing that the program makes money and creates jobs.”
Of course it’s not a done deal yet. The budget now goes through a negotiation process with the Senate and Assembly, but film executives are confident that the tax rebate program will pass, though it may be tweaked a little.
The new program comes with a number of changes. In order to qualify for the 30% credit, producers have to conduct at least ten percent of shooting days at a qualified facility; provide a notice at the end of a film or television show acknowledging financial support from New York state; and purchase property and services from registered sales tax vendors. In an effort to boost the state’s post-production industry, at least 75% of all post-production work needs to be done in New York.
Perhaps most important to production executives is the five year commitment from the state. That longevity gives TV producers the security they need to film their series here. The industry remembers all too well what happened a year ago when Fringe, a show on Fox, packed up its sets and moved to Vancouver because of uncertainty with New York’s tax credits.
At that time, the state’s 30% tax break was so successful that the $685 million allocated to fund it ran out in less than 10 months. The state ended up allocating an additional $350 million for one more year, while it grappled with the recession. Not knowing if the funding would continue after that year was too much uncertainty for a number of TV producers.
The item still needs approval from the State Senate and Assembly, but film executives are confident the rebate program will pass.
The New York film community is breathing a sigh of relief today.
In the 2010 budget proposal released by Gov. Paterson Tuesday, he expanded the film tax credit to $420 million a year from $350 million and extended the program through 2014. The move comes after months of intense lobbying from the film production industry, which has seen business skyrocket since the tax credits were introduced in 2004.
“It’s validation for the work all of us have done to make this program the success that it is,” said Hal Rosenbluth, president of Kaufman Astoria Studios, which is opening a 40,000-square-foot sound stage and support facility next month, the studio’s seventh stage. “The governor is seeing that the program makes money and creates jobs.”
Of course it’s not a done deal yet. The budget now goes through a negotiation process with the Senate and Assembly, but film executives are confident that the tax rebate program will pass, though it may be tweaked a little.
The new program comes with a number of changes. In order to qualify for the 30% credit, producers have to conduct at least ten percent of shooting days at a qualified facility; provide a notice at the end of a film or television show acknowledging financial support from New York state; and purchase property and services from registered sales tax vendors. In an effort to boost the state’s post-production industry, at least 75% of all post-production work needs to be done in New York.
Perhaps most important to production executives is the five year commitment from the state. That longevity gives TV producers the security they need to film their series here. The industry remembers all too well what happened a year ago when Fringe, a show on Fox, packed up its sets and moved to Vancouver because of uncertainty with New York’s tax credits.
At that time, the state’s 30% tax break was so successful that the $685 million allocated to fund it ran out in less than 10 months. The state ended up allocating an additional $350 million for one more year, while it grappled with the recession. Not knowing if the funding would continue after that year was too much uncertainty for a number of TV producers.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Tribune Sees 2009 Cash at $500 Million, Topping Prior Estimate
By Greg BensingerBusiness Week
Jan. 20 (Bloomberg) -- Tribune Co., the publisher of the Los Angeles Times and Baltimore Sun, said it is likely to report 2009 operating cash flow of $500 million, that's double what Tribune had estimated coming into the year. Tribune had upgraded expectations in November, estimating end of the year cash flow at $400 million two months ago.
Improved results from the broadcast and publishing units during the fourth quarter helped boost the Chicago-based company’s cash flow, according to a memo sent to employees by Chief Executive Officer Randy Michaels and Chief Operating Officer Gerry Spector.
"We're still going through the numbers, but thanks to a stronger than expected performance by both the Broadcasting and Publishing Groups in the fourth quarter, it appears we will finish the year with close to $500 million in operating cash flow," the memo said. "Given that we started the year like most media companies, feeling as though we would be fighting for our very survival, this is truly a remarkable achievement."The two thanked employees for their hard work, and keeping expenses low -- but warned that tight times will continue: "We'll still have to keep our expenses in check and be as efficient as possible, but we're optimistic about where we're headed. It’s unclear whether these trends will continue, so we’ll have to work even faster in 2010,” Michaels and Spector said in the memo.
The company has been doing a number of things to keep expenses down, including selling 95 percent of the Chicago Cubs and the iconic Wrigley Field for about $845 million to the Ricketts family in August.
Earlier this month, the Tribune’s LA Times cut 80 jobs as it closed an Orange County printing plant. In addition, the paper said it would shrink the width of the newspaper to 44 inches from 48 inches. In November, the Tribune suspended its Associated Press news feed across its dailies to see if it could do without the wire service
Tribune filed for bankruptcy protection in December 2008, one year after a group led by billionaire Sam Zell took the company private in a deal that saddled it with about $13 billion in debt. The company, also owner of the Chicago Tribune, may emerge from bankruptcy by the end of March, Zell has said.
Related Stories
President Obama, Remember Who Your Friends Are
http://www.truthout.org/president-obama-remember-who-your-friends-are56226Staff Editorial, t r u t h o u t
In the wake of a crushing Democratic defeat in the Massachusetts Senate race, we find ourselves faced with the one-year anniversary of a spirit-changing day in the history of the United States, the inauguration of President Barack Obama. This odd confluence of events provides an opening for a very timely warning: It is time to remember who your friends are, Mr. President.
Your friends are not the suits on Wall Street, the same ones who fooled Timothy Geithner for years. Your friends are not the timid centrists, who Rahm Emanuel coddles. Your friends are not the giants of the mortgage industry, who fought you tooth and nail to keep the foreclosure crisis out of the courts. Your friend is not George W. Bush, whose crimes you continue to conceal.
Your friends are the progressives across this country, who, when you asked for their faith and inspired them with beautiful words, placed you on their shoulders and carried you to a historic victory.
The progressive movement needs results - we're too smart to be placated and spun. We're too cynical - and too determined - to compromise. And, soon, we'll be too jaded to believe that Democrats are anything but limp windsocks, pointing whichever way the wind blows.
Some have already walked away, according to a recent Daily Kos/Research 2000 poll, which states that 45 percent of Democrats are not likely to vote in the 2010 election.
We know that, in your heart, you're one of us. Your heart is the element you seem to have forgotten, the element we miss. You used to wear it on your sleeve; we could hear it pounding in your chest when you spoke.
We heard your heart during your 2002 speech at a Chicago antiwar rally, when you called out the "arm-chair, weekend warriors" in Washington for keeping our soldiers engaged in a "dumb war, a rash war." We heard your heart during your 2004 keynote speech at the Democratic Convention, when you said of the American people, "They know we can do better." We heard it beating loud and clear on New Hampshire Primary Night, when you spoke of true progress, saying, "Whether we are rich or poor; black or white; Latino or Asian; whether we hail from Iowa or New Hampshire, Nevada or South Carolina, we are ready to take this country in a fundamentally new direction."
And upon your inauguration, one year ago today, we dared to believe you when you said, "The time has come to reaffirm our enduring spirit; to choose our better history.
"The right wing thrives on vitriol, hate and divisiveness. When the bile they spew goes unchallenged, their disease infects the people around them. They will not lie down, Mr. President. You are going to have to put them down - with true progressive action, not the frail rhetoric of appeasement.
No one has ever proclaimed a die-hard commitment to centrism. No one has ever held a rally to support bipartisanship. Those are Washington DC catchphrases that mean nothing, serving only as a fog for professional politicians huddling together inside the beltway, too timid and too immersed in campaign logic to stand for anything.
Your job is not to get re-elected in 2012, Mr. President. Your job is to fight tomorrow and then fight the next day. If you're constantly looking up at the scoreboard, worrying about the outcome, you're going to trip over your own laces. Watch the shot clock instead, and fire up three-pointers like you know they're going to sink every time. Get in your opponents' faces and make them work for every single point.
You have a choice now, Mr. President. With your help, 2010 could usher in a host of substantive policy changes: better health care access for millions of Americans, a strategic path to peace in Iraq and Afghanistan and a resounding series of Democratic victories in the midterm elections.
However, if you stand aside and fail to challenge every shot, 2010 could give way to a fractured, crumbling Democratic Party - and the re-emergence of a vicious, feudal corporatism.Choose our better history.
Truthout's Mission
Truthout works to broaden and diversify the political discussion by introducing independent voices and focusing on undercovered issues and unconventional thinking. Harnessing the ever-expanding power of the Internet, we work to spread reliable information, peaceful thought and progressive ideas throughout the world. We are devoted to the principles of equality, democracy, human rights, accountability and social justice. We believe ardently in the power of free speech, and understand that democratic journalism can make the world a better place for all of us.
http://www.truthout.org/
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Healthcare Reform Bill "Compromises"
Hi All,
I'm sorry, but to me these health care reform bill "compromises", offered as a panacea to labor by the White House, look to me like putting a band-aid on a sucking chest wound.
The "exchanges" look a lot like yet another unfunded federal mandate laid on the states, which will result in 50 different approaches ranging from great options to no option at all.
The New York Times reported that "Union officials seem pretty sure that collective bargaining units of all sizes will be included in the exchanges in 2017." I may be cynical but "pretty sure" is a hell of a weak hook to try to hang your hat on with an issue this important.
* State & municipal employees, including those not in unions, are part of the collective bargaining exemption until 2018 Okay, what happens in 2018?
* Thresholds for the excise tax are raised for both individuals and families. Thresholds went up $400 for individuals and $1,000 for families, not much to cheer about here. It would be better to have the tax be based on overall compensation, say tax benefits for those who earn over $200,000 per year.
* Dental & Vision plans do not count towards the excise tax threshold after 2015. That basically saves every American from losing their dental & vision coverage from their employer, as this is likely where companies would have first looked to save money on the coverage. Again, this is true for everyone, not just union members. Okay, but, vision and dental are insurance extras that are not very large components of medical plans and many employers don't even include them, yet another band-aid in my opinion.
*"Starting in 2017, employees covered by collective bargaining agreements at all levels will be able to participate in the exchanges." That's all well and good, but if the burden for setting up and running the exchanges is put on the states this will create chaos, with 50 different deals.
We need to take a much harder line here. We need a well defined, national public option if there is going to be a tax on employer plans. Otherwise, all we've done is shifted much of the financial liability for health care from corporate employers to working Americans.
If we don't hold our Democratic Party leaders' feet to the fire on the health care bill and follow up with a hard line on labor law reform, including making sure EFCA is passed asap, we will be dealing with a lot more Republicans after the next election.
Bob D
I'm sorry, but to me these health care reform bill "compromises", offered as a panacea to labor by the White House, look to me like putting a band-aid on a sucking chest wound.
The "exchanges" look a lot like yet another unfunded federal mandate laid on the states, which will result in 50 different approaches ranging from great options to no option at all.
The New York Times reported that "Union officials seem pretty sure that collective bargaining units of all sizes will be included in the exchanges in 2017." I may be cynical but "pretty sure" is a hell of a weak hook to try to hang your hat on with an issue this important.
* State & municipal employees, including those not in unions, are part of the collective bargaining exemption until 2018 Okay, what happens in 2018?
* Thresholds for the excise tax are raised for both individuals and families. Thresholds went up $400 for individuals and $1,000 for families, not much to cheer about here. It would be better to have the tax be based on overall compensation, say tax benefits for those who earn over $200,000 per year.
* Dental & Vision plans do not count towards the excise tax threshold after 2015. That basically saves every American from losing their dental & vision coverage from their employer, as this is likely where companies would have first looked to save money on the coverage. Again, this is true for everyone, not just union members. Okay, but, vision and dental are insurance extras that are not very large components of medical plans and many employers don't even include them, yet another band-aid in my opinion.
*"Starting in 2017, employees covered by collective bargaining agreements at all levels will be able to participate in the exchanges." That's all well and good, but if the burden for setting up and running the exchanges is put on the states this will create chaos, with 50 different deals.
We need to take a much harder line here. We need a well defined, national public option if there is going to be a tax on employer plans. Otherwise, all we've done is shifted much of the financial liability for health care from corporate employers to working Americans.
If we don't hold our Democratic Party leaders' feet to the fire on the health care bill and follow up with a hard line on labor law reform, including making sure EFCA is passed asap, we will be dealing with a lot more Republicans after the next election.
Bob D
Monday, January 18, 2010
As Shrinking Newsrooms Use Upstarts’ Content, Vetting Questions Arise
By RICHARD PÉREZ-PEÑA
“There are more pressures than ever to acquire content from outside sources, and there are going to be even more going forward,” said Alan D. Mutter, a media consultant and former newspaper editor who blogs about the news business. That means that despite declining resources, newsrooms, he said, “have to get better at due diligence in terms of who this provider is,” and at explaining it to their audiences.
Some of these issues came to a head recently, when The Washington Post published an article from a newly formed news organization, The Fiscal Times, about the debate over federal spending without disclosing that the group’s financial backer is Peter G. Peterson, who has an abiding interest in the issue and ties to experts cited in the article. The Post later acknowledged that it should have disclosed the connections, and its ombudsman, Andrew Alexander, found fault with the article — though not with the underlying relationship with The Fiscal Times.
But there have been more extreme lapses, including television news programs’ broadcasting so-called reports that were produced by outsiders on one side of a particular issue.
Several media analysts and executives said they do not yet see this outsourcing of articles in newspapers as producing anything like that kind of lapse — the major content suppliers are staffed by experienced journalists and so far have a good track record — but the risk is real. Inevitably, they said, there will be groups or individuals with particular slants offering to fill the reporting gaps for traditional news organizations — and the more of them there are, the harder it will be to perceive their agendas.
“There are going to be some newsrooms, I can guarantee you, they’re going to get garbage and they’re going to print it,” said Kelly McBride, ethics group leader at the Poynter Institute, a school for journalists in St. Petersburg, Fla.
For consumers, it becomes that much harder to gauge the credibility of reporting, “and it’s not as clear what the agendas are,” said Ann Marie Lipinski, former editor of The Chicago Tribune. “There has to be total transparency.”
(The New York Times has printed the work of ProPublica and the Chicago News Cooperative, another new organization, and it recently put one of its neighborhood blogs, covering parts of Brooklyn, in the hands of the staff and students of the Graduate School of Journalism of the City University of New York.)
Experts say that when many people have a hand in financing and running a news outlet, there is less danger of an agenda creeping into coverage than when there is a single dominant supporter or owner, like Mr. Peterson. Both Mr. Peterson and The Fiscal Times say that he has no involvement in the group’s journalistic work.
Similar questions have been raised, though not as pointedly, about the Allbritton family, owners of Politico, and Herbert and Marion Sandler, who gave the bulk of the money supporting ProPublica.
But none of the risks posed by outsourcing is entirely new. As for using less-than-objective work from outside sources, “there are a lot of newspapers that essentially take press releases and put them in the paper,” Mr. Mutter said.
For generations, owners who have little or no need to answer to shareholders have famously used their newspapers to pursue their political aims — most famously, the early 20th-century press barons like William Randolph Hearst, Robert R. McCormick and Harrison Gray Otis. In fact, more diffuse corporate ownership did not become the norm until the late 20th century.
“We went through a corporate era, and with more media fragmentation, maybe we’re going back to a stage when individual owners are really more in charge,” said Philip S. Balboni, president and chief executive of Global Post.
For an established news organization, “there is, of course, a greater danger when you outsource than when it is fully within your control,” he said, and it will become more important than ever “to be very careful about who you use and to monitor the content that you use.”
The New York Times
News comes from more and more outlets, about which readers know less and less. Publishers and broadcasters have always called on freelance journalists. But a generation ago, if they used material from another organization, it was usually limited to a handful of large, well-known and respected ones like The Associated Press or Reuters. With established newsrooms shrinking, a raft of smaller news outlets have cropped up in the last few years, selling or simply giving news reports to the traditional media — groups like ProPublica, Global Post, Politico and Kaiser Health News.
“There are more pressures than ever to acquire content from outside sources, and there are going to be even more going forward,” said Alan D. Mutter, a media consultant and former newspaper editor who blogs about the news business. That means that despite declining resources, newsrooms, he said, “have to get better at due diligence in terms of who this provider is,” and at explaining it to their audiences.
Some of these issues came to a head recently, when The Washington Post published an article from a newly formed news organization, The Fiscal Times, about the debate over federal spending without disclosing that the group’s financial backer is Peter G. Peterson, who has an abiding interest in the issue and ties to experts cited in the article. The Post later acknowledged that it should have disclosed the connections, and its ombudsman, Andrew Alexander, found fault with the article — though not with the underlying relationship with The Fiscal Times.
But there have been more extreme lapses, including television news programs’ broadcasting so-called reports that were produced by outsiders on one side of a particular issue.
In the best-known case, in 2004, the Bush administration produced a video that looked like a news report in support of its proposed changes to Medicare, and dozens of stations around the country included it in their newscasts.
Several media analysts and executives said they do not yet see this outsourcing of articles in newspapers as producing anything like that kind of lapse — the major content suppliers are staffed by experienced journalists and so far have a good track record — but the risk is real. Inevitably, they said, there will be groups or individuals with particular slants offering to fill the reporting gaps for traditional news organizations — and the more of them there are, the harder it will be to perceive their agendas.
“There are going to be some newsrooms, I can guarantee you, they’re going to get garbage and they’re going to print it,” said Kelly McBride, ethics group leader at the Poynter Institute, a school for journalists in St. Petersburg, Fla.
For consumers, it becomes that much harder to gauge the credibility of reporting, “and it’s not as clear what the agendas are,” said Ann Marie Lipinski, former editor of The Chicago Tribune. “There has to be total transparency.”
(The New York Times has printed the work of ProPublica and the Chicago News Cooperative, another new organization, and it recently put one of its neighborhood blogs, covering parts of Brooklyn, in the hands of the staff and students of the Graduate School of Journalism of the City University of New York.)
Experts say that when many people have a hand in financing and running a news outlet, there is less danger of an agenda creeping into coverage than when there is a single dominant supporter or owner, like Mr. Peterson. Both Mr. Peterson and The Fiscal Times say that he has no involvement in the group’s journalistic work.
Similar questions have been raised, though not as pointedly, about the Allbritton family, owners of Politico, and Herbert and Marion Sandler, who gave the bulk of the money supporting ProPublica.
What no one can predict is whether the coming years will produce a rush by wealthy individuals or groups to create their own newsrooms — with or without specific biases — to reach consumers either directly or by placing their work with publishers and broadcasters.
But none of the risks posed by outsourcing is entirely new. As for using less-than-objective work from outside sources, “there are a lot of newspapers that essentially take press releases and put them in the paper,” Mr. Mutter said.
For generations, owners who have little or no need to answer to shareholders have famously used their newspapers to pursue their political aims — most famously, the early 20th-century press barons like William Randolph Hearst, Robert R. McCormick and Harrison Gray Otis. In fact, more diffuse corporate ownership did not become the norm until the late 20th century.
“We went through a corporate era, and with more media fragmentation, maybe we’re going back to a stage when individual owners are really more in charge,” said Philip S. Balboni, president and chief executive of Global Post.
For an established news organization, “there is, of course, a greater danger when you outsource than when it is fully within your control,” he said, and it will become more important than ever “to be very careful about who you use and to monitor the content that you use.”
A version of this article appeared in print on January 18, 2010, on page B6 of the New York edition of The New York Times.
Related:
Special Interests Write 'News' (Miami Herald)Ed Wasserman: More and more journalism is being produced by people who are financially dependent on shadowy offstage entities. The result is a potent new challenge to traditional safeguards against conflict of interest, which, it's becoming increasingly obvious, are either too weak, too harsh or flat-out misdirected.
Issues of Background Sourcing Come Up in Game Change (WaPo)Howard Kurtz: The technique in Game Change -- omniscient narrative -- is hardly new, and Mark Halperin and John Heilemann are veteran scribes who have known their political sources for years. But didn't they have a responsibility to ask the former candidates for comment?
From: "mediabistro.com" newsfeed@mediabistro.com
Friday, January 15, 2010
Updated: Labor Leaders Describe Excise-Tax Deal
Updated: Labor Leaders Describe Excise-Tax Deal
Facing intense pressure from organized labor, the Obama administration has agreed to major changes in the proposed tax on high-priced employer-sponsored health benefits.
One change, according to labor leaders involved in the negotiations, is that workers covered by collective bargaining agreements, as well as state and local employees, will be exempted from the tax until 2018.
“We tried to figure out how to have a health plan that was accessible and affordable and that made a difference for working families in this country,” said Anna Burger, chairwoman of the Change to Win labor coalition. The new compromises, she added, help to “make sure that workers who have good health care will be able to continue having good health care” without having their costs or taxes raised.
Richard L. Trumka, president of the AFL-CIO, also provided additional details in a conference call with reporters this afternoon:
The Senate bill would have imposed a 40 percent tax on the amount of policies for individuals above $8,500 and family plans above $23,000. The new threshold for the tax would be $24,000 for families and $8,900 for individuals.
The threshold would be increased each year by the amount of the rise in the Consumer Price Index plus 1 percent — that’s the same rate of indexation called for in the Senate bill.
The formula will be adjusted for inflation from 2010 to 2013. The initial inflation threshold period will be adjusted upward if inflation increases above current assumptions.
For high risk professions, the threshold would increase to $27,000.
There would also be adjustments creating higher thresholds for employee groups whose health premiums are higher because the groups contain a disproportionate percentage of older workers and women. Those two groups tends to have higher health premiums than other workers. There would also be adjustments for those living in high-cost states.
As of 2015, dental and vision costs would not be counted toward the threshold.
Collective bargaining plans were to have been excluded from the exchange.
Starting in 2017, collective bargaining agreements at all levels will be able to participate in the exchanges.
The Congressional Budget Office has projected that the excise tax, as included in the Senate bill, would raise $149 billion over 10 years. Mr. Trumka estimated that the new changes would reduce that figure by about $60 billion.
“We’re hoping all the cost containment in [the bill] will start to ratchet down on health care costs,” said Mr. Trumka. “If it does that, then hopefully no American will bump up against the excise tax.”
According to Mr. Trumka, administration officials reached the agreement with labor leaders early Thursday morning after 15 consecutive hours of talks in the Executive Office Building.
By exempting labor unions from the tax until 2018, the administration could greatly reduce resistance to the tax from an important part of the Democratic base.
Unions asked for a delay in being covered by the tax so that they would have time to negotiate for their workers to achieve health savings and have cheaper health plans before 2018.
“This is good for all working Americans, not just union people,” said Mr. Trumka of the proposed changes. “This makes this bill more fair for them. The labor movement has been fighting for health reform for 60 years. We’re not about to let the naysayers stop us from getting there.”
“The president and his entire staff has worked with us on this,” he added. “He’s proven to be a friend of working people on this. I believe in the election of 2010 and 2012, we will be able to motivate not just our members but working people, because this bill will bring health care to working people and bring costs down.”
One of the biggest differences between the House and Senate versions of the legislation is how they would pay for the nearly $1 trillion, 10-year cost. The excise tax is the biggest new revenue-raiser in the Senate bill. The House bill would impose an income surtax on individuals earning more than $500,000 and couples earning more than $1 million.
The House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, and the majority leader, Representative Steny H. Hoyer, Democrat of Maryland, said on Thursday that the final version of major health care legislation will be posted on the Internet for 72 hours before the House votes on the measure.
Thanks to the Internet, the public has had the opportunity to get a detailed look at the health care legislation throughout the legislative process. Of course, having access to the legislative text and being able to make sense of it are two different issues.
Doomed Deals Spark Tug-of-Wars Between Creditors: Ann Woolner
Commentary by Ann Woolner, Bloomberg - Business WeekJan. 15 (Bloomberg) -- Those who years ago bought Tribune Co. bonds now are hurling nasty claims at the so-deserving Sam Zell, the real estate magnate whose takeover loaded the storied newspaper company with so much debt that it fell into bankruptcy.
Longtime bondholders accuse Zell of borrowing more than the company was worth to make the deal, thus jeopardizing their stakes in what had been until then a solvent company.
The resulting leveraged buyout “was a virtually no-money- down LBO,” as bondholder attorney David Rosner said in court last month.
We know from the mortgage meltdown the danger of no-money- down loans.
So now Tribune bondholders are pitted against the banks and hedge funds that enabled the doomed deal by loaning the money. The question is who gets what ownership interest in the company when it comes out of bankruptcy.
As with the multitude of Ponzi schemes hidden during good times and exposed by the recession, so it is with leveraged buyouts. When the market and the economy were bubbling up, no price seemed reckless.
Now it falls to bankruptcy judges to sort out the rubble. Tribune Co. isn’t the only bankruptcy case prompting accusations of so-called fraudulent transfer. That is bankruptcy slang used when an insolvent company gives away more than it gets in return, or when that sort of fiscal carelessness drives the company into insolvency.
Leveraged Takeovers
At least three other companies went through heavily leveraged takeovers that seemed to have helped land them in bankruptcy court and left previously confident creditors fighting with newcomer lenders. Bondholders aren’t the least bit happy.
A Florida bankruptcy judge in October declared homebuilder Tousa Inc. fraudulently transferred assets when it bailed out an affiliate six months before filing for reorganization. The creditors’ committee has sued Tousa’s directors over it.
In Nevada, creditors for casino operator Station Casinos Inc. are asking a judge to let it sue directors, alleging the company’s 2007 leveraged buyout left it with $1.7 billion in new debt that catapulted the casino operator into bankruptcy.
Likewise, creditors are suing in Manhattan over the 2007 leveraged buyout of Houston-based Lyondell Chemical Co., claiming that was partly a fraudulent transfer, too.
Debt-Ridden Unit
When entrepreneur Leonid Blavatnik used a debt-ridden unit of his Access Industries Holdings LLC to buy the chemical producer, “Every dollar of the $22 billion used to acquire Lyondell was borrowed money,” the creditors committee said in court papers.
Within a year, the merged company was in bankruptcy court. Lyondell’s creditors are suing the major banks and hedge funds that put the deal together.
Of all those deals gone bad, the one that grabs my gut is that of the Tribune Co. I’m a journalist with a deep need and soft heart for newspapers. I fret daily about what will become of them and the rest of us if they fail.
Newspapers were in sufficient trouble without Zell coming along and pulling down some of the country’s best-known papers, the Los Angeles Times, the Chicago Tribune and the Baltimore Sun, all owned by Tribune.
Now the company, which also owns a score of broadcast outlets, might actually make money if it could ever get out of bankruptcy court and settle its debts.
Rightful Demand
What is holding up reorganization is the bondholders’ rightful demand for an independent investigation of the buyout. They have asked the bankruptcy judge to appoint an examiner to look into their claims of fraudulent transfer.
If the bondholders prove the LBO was a fraudulent transfer of assets, board members could be held liable for approving it. The banks that made the defective loans could lose their security interests and their claims against the operating companies, which amount to billions of dollars.
They can’t blame Tribune’s problems on the sudden crash of the economy. That the deal was doomed from the start wasn’t only entirely predictable, it was widely predicted.
Zell, who once called himself a “grave dancer” for happily jumping into companies others found moribund, told the Associated Press in 2007 that he was obviously more optimistic about newspapers than others. At the time he was putting together the Tribune deal as revenue was dropping.
‘Human Wrecking Ball’
Since then, he has been called a “human wrecking ball” for the toll his cost-cutting wreaked on his debt-laden newspapers. So said a Los Angeles-based columnist in a Washington Post op-ed piece.
Asked this week on CNBC when his company will come out of bankruptcy, Zell called it “reasonable to assume that it will come out probably in the first half of this year.” It could happen within the first quarter if negotiations with creditors “go easier.”
At the moment, they aren’t going easy. If his enablers in the merger would acknowledge the debt they owe to the bondholders who preceded them, then things might go a little smoother.
Click on “Send Comment” in sidebar display to send a letter to the editor.
--With assistance from Bill Rochelle in New York. Editors: Jim Rubin, Steven Gittelson.
To contact the writer of this column: Ann Woolner in Atlanta at +1-404-507-1314 or awoolner@bloomberg.net.
To contact the editor responsible for this column: James Greiff at +1-212-617-5801 or jgreiff@bloomberg.net.
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Online College Planned for Union Workers
By STEVEN GREENHOUSEThe New York Times
The A.F.L.-C.I.O., the main umbrella group for the nation’s labor unions, announced on Thursday that it was joining with the National Labor College and the Princeton Review to create an online college for the federation’s 11.5 million members and their families.
The new college, tentatively named the College for Working Families, will seek to “expand job opportunities for its members by providing education and retraining in a way that’s affordable and accessible,” the founders said.
AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka, who chairs the National Labor College Board of Trustees, also announced the selection of The Princeton Review Inc. and its subsidiary, Penn Foster Education Group, as the college’s partners to create the College for Working Families.
AFL-CIO President Trumka said:
"Expanding good jobs is a top priority for the AFL-CIO and to achieve this, workers’ skills and knowledge must match the role of employers in a changing job market. This new online education venture demonstrates our strong commitment to playing a significant role in ensuring that quality education for America’s workers and their families remains affordable and accessible."
The college will be the first and only accredited degree-granting online institution devoted exclusively to educating union members. It plans to begin offering courses this fall, including ones on criminal justice, education, business and allied health sciences.
“We’re working on a survey to send out to the A.F.L.-C.I.O.’s members to find out what they’d be interested in,” said William Scheuerman, president of the National Labor College, a 41-year-old college for union members based in Silver Spring, Md.
He said the online college would charge $100 to $150 a credit, competitive with community colleges and far cheaper than most four-year colleges and for-profit schools.
Mr. Scheuerman said the labor college selected the Princeton Review and its Penn Foster subsidiary as partners because of their expertise in distance learning.
In 1890, Penn Foster, based in Scranton, Pa., first provided correspondence courses by mail on safety to coal miners. Penn Foster provides online courses to 220,000 students, and a large part of its operations are unionized.
Michael Perik, president of the Princeton Review, said the College for Working Families would emphasize remedial learning and retention far more than for-profit online colleges do.
“We enter this venture with the strong belief that not enough attention has been paid to student remediation and retention,” Mr. Perik said. “If you’re a 30-year-old worker who is going back to school, you might have to relearn a number of high school-type programs. If you’re going to succeed in an allied health care job, you might need to relearn some of your middle school mathematics to succeed.”
He said the A.F.L.-C.I.O. wanted to focus on student retention. “If have you have a two-year program and can keep students through the first six months, the difference in terms of their likelihood to succeed is exponential,” Mr. Perik said.
Mr. Scheuerman said workers whose labor unions were not in the A.F.L.-C.I.O., like members of the Teamsters and service employees’ unions, could also take courses in the new college. He said they would probably have to pay a premium above what A.F.L.-C.I.O. members pay.
Mr. Scheuerman said the online college would first offer bachelor’s degrees and would ultimately also offer associate’s and master’s degrees.
Established as a training center by the AFL-CIO in 1969 to strengthen union member education and organizing skills, the National Labor College is the nation’s only accredited higher education institution devoted exclusively to educating union members, leaders and staff.
The NLC became a degree-granting college in 1997 and in March 2004 gained accreditation from the Middle States Commission on Higher Education.
With a 47-acre campus located in Silver Spring, Maryland, a new 72,000 square-foot state- of-the-art academic and conference center, and hotel quality residence halls, the College is well equipped to provide the classroom, meeting spaces and superb dining services, which have become our trademark. And the College has been the venue for an increasing number of national and international conferences on organizing, labor rights, civil rights, health care and pension benefits among other areas.
The NLC is also the home of the ”National Workers Memorial” erected on campus to honor the memory of workers killed or fatally injured on the job, or in service to the labor movement.
Since its founding, more than 200,000 union officers and members have taken one or more of our union skills courses and over 1,100 BA degrees in labor studies have been granted.
Recipients include international union presidents and officers, local union officials and stewards and workers from virtually every national and international union.
National Labor College
Academic Services
10000 New Hampshire Ave.
Silver Spring, MD 20903
Phone: (301) 431-6400
Fax: (301) 628-0160 Toll Free: 1-800-462-4237
People.com Newspaper Guild Employees Claim Win in Labor Case
-By Lucia Moses
Media Week
An arbitrator has ordered Time Inc. to honor an earlier agreement that employees covered by The Newspaper Guild of New York shall not be forced to work for the company’s Web sites, according to the Guild.
The Guild had accused People of violating a 2007 agreement with the publishing giant stating that work for the Web sites be voluntary. The agreement also called for Guild employees’ workload to be adjusted accordingly if they worked for the Web sites.
The case centered on People’s L.A. bureau, which has about 20 Guild-covered staffers. The union believed conditions were the worst there. In a split decision, the arbitrator ruled that staffers, who aren’t paid overtime, can’t be compensated for extra time they put into the Web site.
Local Guild representative Bob Townsend said he was “thrilled” with the ruling, even though staffers wouldn’t be awarded back pay. “I think it’s very clear now that the staff knows the ground rules and that management knows that they’re going to have to follow the ground rules,” he said.
This all came about after editors at Time Inc.-owned Fortune and Time told their staffs that they would be required to work for the dot-com operations, and that part of their compensation would be based on that work.
The argument started in September 2008 when a People staff member e-mailed management asking whether dot-com work was mandatory. Management said yes, then wrote back again:"They're not mandatory, per se, but they're not optional either."
The guild representing Time Inc. staffers filed a complaint, covered in November 2009, citing not just increased responsibilities but increased workload as a reason why having staffers double-dip is a problem.
As of today, the dot-com work at People et al is voluntary.
Media Week
An arbitrator has ordered Time Inc. to honor an earlier agreement that employees covered by The Newspaper Guild of New York shall not be forced to work for the company’s Web sites, according to the Guild.
The Guild had accused People of violating a 2007 agreement with the publishing giant stating that work for the Web sites be voluntary. The agreement also called for Guild employees’ workload to be adjusted accordingly if they worked for the Web sites.
The case centered on People’s L.A. bureau, which has about 20 Guild-covered staffers. The union believed conditions were the worst there. In a split decision, the arbitrator ruled that staffers, who aren’t paid overtime, can’t be compensated for extra time they put into the Web site.
Local Guild representative Bob Townsend said he was “thrilled” with the ruling, even though staffers wouldn’t be awarded back pay. “I think it’s very clear now that the staff knows the ground rules and that management knows that they’re going to have to follow the ground rules,” he said.
This all came about after editors at Time Inc.-owned Fortune and Time told their staffs that they would be required to work for the dot-com operations, and that part of their compensation would be based on that work.
The argument started in September 2008 when a People staff member e-mailed management asking whether dot-com work was mandatory. Management said yes, then wrote back again:"They're not mandatory, per se, but they're not optional either."
The guild representing Time Inc. staffers filed a complaint, covered in November 2009, citing not just increased responsibilities but increased workload as a reason why having staffers double-dip is a problem.
As of today, the dot-com work at People et al is voluntary.
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Time to Re-think the Senate's Health Care Reform Bill
Associated Press writers Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar and Erica Werner reported today that
there has been an outpouring of complaints from labor leaders angry over President Barack Obama's support for a tax on high-cost health insurance plans. The 40 percent levy would fall on employer health plans worth more than $8,500 for an individual or $23,000 for a family.
Zalvador and Werner reported that while President Obama terms the high-cost health insurance plans "Cadillac" plans, union leaders say many working-class Americans who have negotiated good benefits in exchange for lesser pay would be hurt.
The "Cadillac" tax is a cornerstone of the Senate bill's approach to controlling costs. Government analysts estimate the pain could be widely felt, with the tax hitting 22 percent of insured workers in 2019.
The idea is to nudge people into equally comprehensive, but cheaper, coverage. The problem is that, with no public option available in the Senate's version of the health care reform bill, the only choice for coverage will be State sponsored purchasing pools, but there is concern that states governed by Republicans may opt not to create them and some Democratic states may have trouble meeting yet another unfunded federal mandate.
The insurance industry supports the Senate approach.
If this version passes, employees will be angry because many gave up wage increases for employer sponsored health insurance that is now taxable.
Many healthy employees will opt out of the taxable employer plans and may or may not be able to get coverage from "purchasing pools", which their State may or may not choose to set up.
Many of the employees that remain in the employer sponsored health plans will be those with medical concerns. This creates what insurance companies call "adverse selection", which will cause the insurance companies to raise premiums substantially, forcing many employers to drop their health plans altogether.
AFL-CIO president, Richard Trumka warned "disillusioned union members might just not show up to vote if they fail to come up with a health bill labor likes". Trumka said labor groups prefer the approach in the House bill, which raises income taxes on the wealthy to pay for expanded health insurance coverage.
Harold A. Schaitberger, president of the International Association of Firefighters, commented "The president's support for the excise tax is a huge disappointment and cannot be ignored," he said in a statement. "If President Obama continues to support it and signs a bill that includes the excise tax on workers, we will hold him accountable."
Passing the Senate version of the bill will not only offend the union members and other progressive Democrats, but will anger the vast majority of working Democrats. Disappointed Democrats will just stay home on election day, causing catastrophic election defeats for Democratic party candidates similar to those in the 1994 elections.
President Obama and the Democratic Party leadership need to re-think this legislation and come up with a health care reform plan that does not add to the already substantial tax burden of working Americans, expands comprehensive health coverage to all Americans, and curbs the power of the big insurance and pharmaceutical companies. This is a huge, complicated challenge. The Democratic Party and the American people will be better served if we take the time to do it right. - BD
there has been an outpouring of complaints from labor leaders angry over President Barack Obama's support for a tax on high-cost health insurance plans. The 40 percent levy would fall on employer health plans worth more than $8,500 for an individual or $23,000 for a family.
Zalvador and Werner reported that while President Obama terms the high-cost health insurance plans "Cadillac" plans, union leaders say many working-class Americans who have negotiated good benefits in exchange for lesser pay would be hurt.
The "Cadillac" tax is a cornerstone of the Senate bill's approach to controlling costs. Government analysts estimate the pain could be widely felt, with the tax hitting 22 percent of insured workers in 2019.
The idea is to nudge people into equally comprehensive, but cheaper, coverage. The problem is that, with no public option available in the Senate's version of the health care reform bill, the only choice for coverage will be State sponsored purchasing pools, but there is concern that states governed by Republicans may opt not to create them and some Democratic states may have trouble meeting yet another unfunded federal mandate.
The insurance industry supports the Senate approach.
If this version passes, employees will be angry because many gave up wage increases for employer sponsored health insurance that is now taxable.
Many healthy employees will opt out of the taxable employer plans and may or may not be able to get coverage from "purchasing pools", which their State may or may not choose to set up.
Many of the employees that remain in the employer sponsored health plans will be those with medical concerns. This creates what insurance companies call "adverse selection", which will cause the insurance companies to raise premiums substantially, forcing many employers to drop their health plans altogether.
AFL-CIO president, Richard Trumka warned "disillusioned union members might just not show up to vote if they fail to come up with a health bill labor likes". Trumka said labor groups prefer the approach in the House bill, which raises income taxes on the wealthy to pay for expanded health insurance coverage.
Harold A. Schaitberger, president of the International Association of Firefighters, commented "The president's support for the excise tax is a huge disappointment and cannot be ignored," he said in a statement. "If President Obama continues to support it and signs a bill that includes the excise tax on workers, we will hold him accountable."
Passing the Senate version of the bill will not only offend the union members and other progressive Democrats, but will anger the vast majority of working Democrats. Disappointed Democrats will just stay home on election day, causing catastrophic election defeats for Democratic party candidates similar to those in the 1994 elections.
President Obama and the Democratic Party leadership need to re-think this legislation and come up with a health care reform plan that does not add to the already substantial tax burden of working Americans, expands comprehensive health coverage to all Americans, and curbs the power of the big insurance and pharmaceutical companies. This is a huge, complicated challenge. The Democratic Party and the American people will be better served if we take the time to do it right. - BD
January 12, 2010: Clusterf#@k to the Poor House - Wall Street Bonuses
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Clusterf#@k to the Poor House - Wall Street Bonuses | ||||
| ||||
Companies that American taxpayers had to bail out with billions of dollars use that money to reward their employees with bonuses.
Sunday, January 10, 2010
Interesting Management view of union organizing campaigns
Interesting Management view of union organizing campaigns, they really don't like us trade unionists very much.After watching their Powerpoint presentation I wrote the following response:
If you want to keep the union out of your business:
1) Treat your employees like partners not peons. Your employees are not an expense, but your most valuable asset. They need to know that you feel that way.
2) Prove it! Provide excellent wages, benefits, profit participation, and merit based bonuses to ALL employees, not just the select few.
3) Provide ongoing training and clear career paths to engage your employees. Develop loyalty, low turnover, low absentee rates, and high productivity by being loyal to your employees. If you are enrolled in their success, they will be enrolled in yours.
4) Ask your employees for their input. middle management needs to be in relationship with the workers so that when upper management wants a result, the middle manager can ask the employees what they need to create that result.
Only respect, communication, and inclusion will keep your shop union free.
If you can't do those things, then someone like me will show up with organizing cards and help you do the right thing through collective bargaining.
Friday, January 8, 2010
TV Stocks Soar In 2009
38% of broadcast engineers have been laid off around the country in 2009. TV stations are automating production studio control rooms, consolidating master control rooms to giant server farms, using LNS and one-man-bands to cut ENG crews, all to eliminate even more engineering positions.
At the same time broadcast company stock prices, despite claims of massive loss of advertizing revenue, have had dramatic increases in 2009.
At NewsCorp, the stock price jumped 66.18%
Disney's stock rose 42.13%
CBS stock is up 71%
Of the four major networks only GE, parent of NBC showed a stock price drop in 2009, the share price falling - 6.6%.
Employees at all these companies have endured layoffs, wage freezes, and benefit reductions, while executives recieve big bonuses and the stock price soars.
BD
See the article from Radio/TV Business Report below for details.
What a difference a year makes! The advertising recession dragged radio and television stocks down in 2008, with what turned out to be the bottom of the trough coming in late November of ’08. 2009 did not bring a quick recovery from the recession, but as soon as Wall Street got the scent of a recovery, advertising-dependent stocks surged.
If you look at the graphs below, you will see that stock price recovery beginning in late summer and building to a powerful rally in Q4. The TVBR Television Index closed out its second year of existence by surging to an all-time high on the next to last day of 2009, then slipping back only slight to close the year with a gain of 414.8%.
Television stock performance 2009
Television 12/31/08 12/31/09 2009 2009
Company Close Close Net Chg Pct Chg
Nexstar 0.51 4.05 3.54 694.12%
SBS 0.10 0.78 0.68 680.00%
Television Index 26.04 134.08 108.04 414.84%
Media General 1.75 7.84 6.09 348.00%
LIN Television 1.09 4.46 3.37 309.17%
Gray (common) 0.40 1.50 1.10 275.00%
Belo 1.56 5.44 3.88 248.72%
Scripps 2.21 6.96 4.75 214.93%
Gray, Cl. A 0.58 1.50 0.92 158.62%
Entravision 1.56 3.40 1.84 117.95%
Google 307.65 619.98 312.33 101.52%
Saga* 6.60 12.54 5.94 90.00%
Gannett 8.00 14.85 6.85 85.63%
Meredith 17.12 30.85 13.73 80.20%
CBS Cl. B 8.19 14.05 5.86 71.55%
CBS Cl. A 8.24 14.07 5.83 70.75%
News Corp. 9.58 15.92 6.34 66.18%
Journal 2.45 3.89 1.44 58.78%
McGraw-Hill 23.19 33.51 10.32 44.50%
Disney 22.69 32.25 9.56 42.13%
Sinclair 3.10 4.03 0.93 30.00%
ACME 0.40 0.50 0.10 25.00%
Wash. Post 390.25 439.60 49.35 12.65%
Time Warner** 30.18 29.14 -1.04 -3.45%
General Elec. 16.20 15.13 -1.07 -6.60%
Fisher 20.64 16.25 -4.39 -21.27%
Young 0.03 0.0 -0.02 -66.67%
*adjusted for 1 for 4 reverse split 1/28
**adjusted for 1 for 3 reverse split 3/27
It spent much of 2009 in financial wheeling and dealing to avoid any technical default under its credit agreements which could have landed it in the clutches of vulture capital funds who are bent on seeing it have to file Chapter 11 so they can grab assets on the cheap from their investments in deeply discounted Clear Channel debt.
In the most recent chapter of that drama, a Clear Channel Outdoor subsidiary sold $2.5 billion of new bonds and helped its parent company spruce up its balance sheet. At the same time, Clear Channel Radio reported that December revenues were pacing up from a year ago, so it appears the recovery is real and the vultures will have to go away hungry.
– Jack Messmer
Thursday, January 7, 2010
Justice Dept. To Scrutinize Comcast-NBC Deal
The potential merger between Comcast and NBC Universal will be under the regulatory microscope of the Justice Department.The U.S. Department of Justice confirmed Wednesday that it would be the agency to spearhead a review of the $30 billion deal that would give Comcast majority ownership of NBC, Universal Studios, and a host of cable TV franchises. The antitrust portion of the review could have gone to the Department of Justice or FTC. At least one watchdog hailed the DOJ decision.
According to Reuters, DOJ’s main area of concern is likely to be assuring that NBCU programming will remain available to Comcast’s MVPD competitors. Others are concerned that Comcast will wield too much internet programming power.
Free Press executive director Josh Silver said, "A Comcast/NBC merger would create a media behemoth with too much power in too few hands. It is a good sign that the Justice Department was given the green light for the review. The DOJ’s antitrust division now has a chance to make a clean break from the inactivity of recent years and tackle this merger with the urgency it deserves."
Silver lauded the presence of Christine Varney at DOJ as head of the antitrust division. A former FTC employee, she is on record as being wary of vertical integration.Silver quoted her words from a 1995 speech, when she said, "Vertical acquisitions can be anticompetitive. Vertical mergers can create or raise entry barriers that lead to higher prices or lower quality or innovation for consumers.... Vertical mergers can, in certain instances, increase those barriers to entry even more, raising costs and reducing innovation and quality for consumers."
Both the Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission typically look into mergers that involve potential antitrust issues, but DOJ is taking the lead on this one. Ultimately, the Federal Communications Commission will also need to examine the deal.
First revealed last October, the merger would create a joint venture 51 percent owned by Comcast and 49 percent by NBC parent company General Electric. Comcast would pay GE about $6.5 billion in cash upfront. A special option would allow GE to eventually sell off pieces of its stake in the new venture to Comcast over a period of seven years.
Comcast is already the nation's largest cable provider with 23.8 million cable TV customers. The company also owns a few select cable channels, including E! Entertainment and two sports channels--the Golf Channel and Versus. If the NBCU deal is consummated, Comcast will also claim ownership of not just NBC and Universal Studios, but also an array of popular cable networks, including CNBC, MSNBC, Bravo, USA, SyFy, and Oxygen. NBCU also has a minority share in Hulu, while Comcast has Fancast, its own video streaming site.
Since the merger would turn Comcast into both a provider and distributor of news and entertainment, the DOJ has reason for concern. One hot button issue has been Comcast's treatment of cable channels outside its ownership.
On Wednesday, the Tennis Channel filled a complaint with the FCC accusing Comcast of giving preferential treatment to Comcast-owned sports networks. Comcast's Golf and Versus channels are free as part of a basic cable subscription, while the Tennis Channel is only available through a premium sports package that costs $5 to $8 extra per month, thereby hitting a smaller number of subscribers.
The National Football League also fought a lengthy battle with Comcast over the same issue. The two sides finally came to peace last May after Comcast agreed to move the NFL Network from its premium sports package to a less pricey digital package that would reach more customers.
GE said had it no comment on the DOJ's investigation, while Comcast failed to respond to a request from CNET.
Originally posted at Digital Media
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The heads of Comcast Corp and NBC Universal have been asked to appear at a Senate committee hearing later this month to discuss a deal pending between the two companies, a spokeswoman said on Monday.
Comcast Chairman Brian Roberts and NBC Universal President Jeff Zucker are expected to appear at the hearing held by the Senate's antitrust subcommittee, which will probably take place in late January, said Dawn Schueller, a spokeswoman for Sen. Herb Kohl.
"It will consider implications of the merger for consumers and the cost that they'll pay for cable," said Schueller.
Other witnesses will likely include a representative of a consumer group and a spokesman for a rival company, she said. Neither has been identified.
Antitrust experts have said that Comcast Corp's NBC Universal deal faces a long and intense regulatory review that will likely end in approval only after the cable giant agrees to give rivals access to NBCU's television shows and movies.
Reporting by Diane Bartz; Editing by Richard Chang
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6034GZ20100104
FCC Broadcast Finance Panels Set For January 12, 2010 Meeting
MEDIA BUREAU ANNOUNCES PANELISTS AND AGENDA FOR MEDIA OWNERSHIP WORKSHOP ON FINANCIAL AND MARKETPLACE ISSUES(MB DOCKET NO. 09-182)
Washington, D.C.: The Media Bureau today announced the panelists and agenda for its January 12, 2010 media ownership workshop, to be held in the Commission Meeting Room from 9:00 a.m. – 1:00 p.m. The workshop will focus on the current financial and economic conditions and marketplace factors affecting the media industry and how the Commission should take these into account as it conducts its 2010 quadrennial review process.
Agenda and Panelists:
9:00 a.m. Welcome and Introductory Remarks
9:15 a.m. Financial Issues Facing Larger Markets/Large Broadcasters
Brandon Burgess, ION Media Networks
James Cotter, Sun Trust Bank
Brian Rich, Catalyst Investors
Marci Ryvicker, Wells Fargo
11:00 a.m. Financial Issues Facing Smaller Markets/Small Broadcasters
Susan Patrick, Patrick Communications
Maria De Leon, KXTD Gaytan Broadcasting Media, LLC
Rick Peters, Bluewater Broadcasting
Terry Jones, Syncom Funds
1:00 p.m. Adjournment
Additional panelists may appear.
The forum will be open to the public. Audio/video coverage will be broadcast live over the Internet from the FCC Live web page at https://webmail.fcc.gov/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://www.fcc.gov/live. Questions can be submitted in person or via email to 2010quadrennial@fcc.gov throughout the course of the workshop.
Open captioning will be provided. Other reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities are available upon request. Include a description of the accommodation you will need. Also include a way we can contact you if we need more information. Last-minute
requests will be accepted, but may not be possible to fill.
Washington, D.C.: The Media Bureau today announced the panelists and agenda for its January 12, 2010 media ownership workshop, to be held in the Commission Meeting Room from 9:00 a.m. – 1:00 p.m. The workshop will focus on the current financial and economic conditions and marketplace factors affecting the media industry and how the Commission should take these into account as it conducts its 2010 quadrennial review process.
Agenda and Panelists:
9:00 a.m. Welcome and Introductory Remarks
9:15 a.m. Financial Issues Facing Larger Markets/Large Broadcasters
Brandon Burgess, ION Media Networks
James Cotter, Sun Trust Bank
Brian Rich, Catalyst Investors
Marci Ryvicker, Wells Fargo
11:00 a.m. Financial Issues Facing Smaller Markets/Small Broadcasters
Susan Patrick, Patrick Communications
Maria De Leon, KXTD Gaytan Broadcasting Media, LLC
Rick Peters, Bluewater Broadcasting
Terry Jones, Syncom Funds
1:00 p.m. Adjournment
Additional panelists may appear.
The forum will be open to the public. Audio/video coverage will be broadcast live over the Internet from the FCC Live web page at https://webmail.fcc.gov/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://www.fcc.gov/live. Questions can be submitted in person or via email to 2010quadrennial@fcc.gov throughout the course of the workshop.
Open captioning will be provided. Other reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities are available upon request. Include a description of the accommodation you will need. Also include a way we can contact you if we need more information. Last-minute
requests will be accepted, but may not be possible to fill.
Send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (tty).
For further information, contact Mania Baghdadi or Amy Brett, Industry Analysis Division, Media Bureau (202) 418-2330. Media Bureau press contact: Janice Wise (202) 418-8165.
-FCC-
For further information, contact Mania Baghdadi or Amy Brett, Industry Analysis Division, Media Bureau (202) 418-2330. Media Bureau press contact: Janice Wise (202) 418-8165.
-FCC-
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
Why We Pay Union Dues
Some time back, I received a question from one of my IBEW Local 1212 Brothers at WPIX regarding why we pay union dues, when the non-union guy editing in the edit room next to his did not.
Wow, where to begin?
First, while shared jurisdiction allows WPIX to hire both represented and non-represented editors, we, as IBEW members, are paid substantially more than the non-union editor. This is true at the IATSE and NABET shops as well.
The union provides shop stewards to help with workplace issues offering the strength of collective bargaining and the grievance/arbitration process for larger problem resolution.
Grievances filed and moving towards arbitration regarding how WPIX manages shared jurisdiction should end in a positive result for our members. This process is not available to non-represented employees.
The union raises the baseline wages, benefits, and working conditions for members through collective bargaining.That non-union engineer is paid better because union rates bring up non-union rates to discourage organizing.
The union is only as valuable and useful as the commitment of it's membership. IATSE Local 1 meetings get hundreds of members attending, IBEW meetings get less than a dozen most of the time, then we wonder why the situation is where it is. We must strive to do better.
The fellow who asked the question is one of our best and brightest. Engineers like him are the ones with the wherewithal to facilitate the changes we need to make our union strong and responsive to our members. He, and others like him, are key players in our efforts.
We finally have some good people at the International and the IBEW Local 1212 hall. We have opened a dialog with NABET and IATSE through the New York Broadcast Trades Council for our mutual benefit. Give the leadership some feedback and support, and we'll all get even more value for our union dues.
Our industry is shrinking. Consolidation, automation, LNS, and changing business models in broadcasting will continue to cause staff reductions.
We need to think outside the box, organize every non-management employee that does not have union representation at every TV station and production company. We need to organize the workers at the new server farms where the networks will be running multiple master control rooms. We need to organize in all new media.
To do this, we must promulgate a contract that is freelancer friendly, with good wages and easily reached benefit thresholds.
We must also support those members that will be leaving the broadcast industry for new endeavors. Career counciling and coaching needs to be made available through our unions.
Woody Allen said "98% of success is showing up". Our people have to start showing up, not just to work, but to union meetings. The challenges we face require everyone's help, not just the usual suspects.
I have always been a trade unionist and believe that we are indeed our brother's keepers. There is no limit to what can be accomplished by workers standing together against the short sightedness and greed of big corporations.
Remember what Benjamin Franklin said to the members of the First Continental Congress:"We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately."
Fraternally,
Bob D
Robert R. Daraio
Recording Secretary
New York Broadcast Trades Council
45 Hunter Street
Ossining, N.Y. 10562-4612
914-944-9626 home
914-774-2646 cell
bdaraio@yahoo.com
Wow, where to begin?
First, while shared jurisdiction allows WPIX to hire both represented and non-represented editors, we, as IBEW members, are paid substantially more than the non-union editor. This is true at the IATSE and NABET shops as well.
The union provides shop stewards to help with workplace issues offering the strength of collective bargaining and the grievance/arbitration process for larger problem resolution.
Grievances filed and moving towards arbitration regarding how WPIX manages shared jurisdiction should end in a positive result for our members. This process is not available to non-represented employees.
The union raises the baseline wages, benefits, and working conditions for members through collective bargaining.That non-union engineer is paid better because union rates bring up non-union rates to discourage organizing.
The union is only as valuable and useful as the commitment of it's membership. IATSE Local 1 meetings get hundreds of members attending, IBEW meetings get less than a dozen most of the time, then we wonder why the situation is where it is. We must strive to do better.
The fellow who asked the question is one of our best and brightest. Engineers like him are the ones with the wherewithal to facilitate the changes we need to make our union strong and responsive to our members. He, and others like him, are key players in our efforts.
We finally have some good people at the International and the IBEW Local 1212 hall. We have opened a dialog with NABET and IATSE through the New York Broadcast Trades Council for our mutual benefit. Give the leadership some feedback and support, and we'll all get even more value for our union dues.
Our industry is shrinking. Consolidation, automation, LNS, and changing business models in broadcasting will continue to cause staff reductions.
We need to think outside the box, organize every non-management employee that does not have union representation at every TV station and production company. We need to organize the workers at the new server farms where the networks will be running multiple master control rooms. We need to organize in all new media.
To do this, we must promulgate a contract that is freelancer friendly, with good wages and easily reached benefit thresholds.
We must also support those members that will be leaving the broadcast industry for new endeavors. Career counciling and coaching needs to be made available through our unions.
Woody Allen said "98% of success is showing up". Our people have to start showing up, not just to work, but to union meetings. The challenges we face require everyone's help, not just the usual suspects.
I have always been a trade unionist and believe that we are indeed our brother's keepers. There is no limit to what can be accomplished by workers standing together against the short sightedness and greed of big corporations.
Remember what Benjamin Franklin said to the members of the First Continental Congress:"We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately."
Fraternally,
Bob D
Robert R. Daraio
Recording Secretary
New York Broadcast Trades Council
45 Hunter Street
Ossining, N.Y. 10562-4612
914-944-9626 home
914-774-2646 cell
bdaraio@yahoo.com
Cablevision To Cut Newsday's Pay, Vacations
By KEITH J. KELLY
The New York Post
Newsday's 1,100 unionized workers are fuming at a proposal by owner Cablevision to slash their pay by an average of 10 percent, lop off a week's vacation and impose a longer work week under a new three-year contract.
"It was like a cold slap to the face," said one Newsday journalist shortly after hearing about the new proposal. "There has been almost immediate outrage."
The cuts are part of an effort by Cablevision to wring $8 million in savings out of the Long Island daily, according to one person. The cable operator bought Newsday from Tribune Co. in 2008.
Rank and file workers are expected to vote on the new contracts on Sunday. Current contracts expire between late February and late June, depending on the department. The contract for the 250 people in editorial expires on March 31.
Under Cablevision's proposal, most workers would see their salaries cut 10 percent, though the newspaper's drivers are being asked to take a 15 percent pay cut and to eliminate 15 positions from the 160-person transportation unit.
In addition, all employees' workweek would be extended five hours to 40, and long-term employees who have topped out at five weeks' vacation would lose a week.
"Newsday is not immune to the economic challenges facing the newspaper industry and we have been working closely with our union partners to find solutions to issues impacting our business in order to maintain Newsday as a strong and viable company for the long term," said Newsday spokeswoman Deidra Parrish Williams. "We are pleased that we were able to reach a tentative agreement with the union leadership and hope that it will be ratified."
Michael O'Connor, president of Local 406 of the Graphic Communications International Union, said Cablevision's offer is aimed at saving Newsday around $8 million a year, and that the newspaper lost at least $7 million in 2009.
"I think this is the best we are going to extract from Newsday at this time," said O'Connor. "I know a lot of people are upset, but everyone has to look at their options."
O'Connor said Cablevision originally pushed for a 15 percent pay cut across the board and for more leeway on who it could ax.
He added the offer currently on the table outlines for the first time specific language on severance, proposing that two weeks of pay for each year of work up to 52 weeks.
The New York Post
Newsday's 1,100 unionized workers are fuming at a proposal by owner Cablevision to slash their pay by an average of 10 percent, lop off a week's vacation and impose a longer work week under a new three-year contract.
"It was like a cold slap to the face," said one Newsday journalist shortly after hearing about the new proposal. "There has been almost immediate outrage."
The cuts are part of an effort by Cablevision to wring $8 million in savings out of the Long Island daily, according to one person. The cable operator bought Newsday from Tribune Co. in 2008.
Rank and file workers are expected to vote on the new contracts on Sunday. Current contracts expire between late February and late June, depending on the department. The contract for the 250 people in editorial expires on March 31.
Under Cablevision's proposal, most workers would see their salaries cut 10 percent, though the newspaper's drivers are being asked to take a 15 percent pay cut and to eliminate 15 positions from the 160-person transportation unit.
In addition, all employees' workweek would be extended five hours to 40, and long-term employees who have topped out at five weeks' vacation would lose a week.
"Newsday is not immune to the economic challenges facing the newspaper industry and we have been working closely with our union partners to find solutions to issues impacting our business in order to maintain Newsday as a strong and viable company for the long term," said Newsday spokeswoman Deidra Parrish Williams. "We are pleased that we were able to reach a tentative agreement with the union leadership and hope that it will be ratified."
Michael O'Connor, president of Local 406 of the Graphic Communications International Union, said Cablevision's offer is aimed at saving Newsday around $8 million a year, and that the newspaper lost at least $7 million in 2009.
"I think this is the best we are going to extract from Newsday at this time," said O'Connor. "I know a lot of people are upset, but everyone has to look at their options."
O'Connor said Cablevision originally pushed for a 15 percent pay cut across the board and for more leeway on who it could ax.
He added the offer currently on the table outlines for the first time specific language on severance, proposing that two weeks of pay for each year of work up to 52 weeks.
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
NBC, Comcast headed to the Hill
The proposed merger of a major television network and a major cable company is going to be dragged over the coals by Kohl – Sen. Herb Kohl (D-WI), Chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy and Consumer Rights.A hearing is expected late this month.According to reports, both Brian Roberts of Comcast and Jeff Zucker of NBC Universal are likely to be called to testify.
Other likely witnesses are a consumer watchdog and an executive from a competitor.The Subcommittee is part of the Judiciary Committee, which features seven Democrats v. only three Republicans, headed by Ranking Member Orrin Hatch (R-UT).
According to Reuters, Comcast’s Fancast Xfinity, which is linked to a multi-company project known as TV Everywhere, may also come up at the hearing.RBR-TVBR observation: This is a subcommittee of one of two Senate Committees that could host a session on Comcast/NBCU, the other being Commerce. It has a relevant subcommittee, and there are mirror committees and subcommittees in the House, leaving open the possibility of seven additional hearings. We don’t think there will be that many, but we’re also sure this will be the first, not the last.
Watchdogs Attack TV Everywhere
A coalition of consumer groups and media watchdogs is calling for an antitrust investigation into the TV Everywhere service being touted by several large media groups, chiefly Time Warner Cable and Comcast.One of them, Free Press, put out a report on the matter called “TV Competition Nowhere: How the Cable Industry Is Colluding to Kill Online TV.”The charge is that the two giant cable/internet ISPs, along with satellite broadcasters and big programmers, are tying a great deal of desirable online programming to an MVPD subscription, thus heading off possible competition from online services, limiting consumer choice and opening up the possibility of building “…on the cable TV model that gouges consumers.”
"This is a textbook antitrust violation," said report author, Free Press advisor and law professor Marvin Ammori. "The old media giants are working together to kill off innovative online competitors and carve up the market for themselves. TV Everywhere is designed to eliminate competition at a pivotal moment in the history of television. The antitrust authorities should not stand by and let the cable cartel crush Internet TV before it gets off the ground.
"Free Press’s Ben Scott sees the internet as a venue that may finally host an effective competitor to cable television, and does not want to see that possibility nipped in the bud. He said, "Internet TV could actually inject much needed competition into a TV market long dominated by cable companies -- this is a valuable opportunity to provide greater innovation for consumers. More competition means lower prices for consumers. The Internet offers the potential for democratizing the TV screen now controlled by a handful of powerful media companies. We urge antitrust authorities to move immediately to promote competition.
"The coalition includes Free Press, Media Access Project, Consumers Union, Consumer Federation of America, New America Foundation's Open Technology Initiative, Public Knowledge, and the Participatory Culture Foundation.
WRITERS GUILD OF AMERICA, EAST’S DIGITAL MEDIA SIGNATORIES TRIPLE IN 2009
WGAE added 22 digital media companies as signatories in 2009 as result of the Guild’s increased emphasis on organizing and Writers Guild 2.0 initiative.Signings Skyrocket under Writers Guild 2.0 New Media Initiative
NEW YORK CITY – Writers Guild of America, East, AFL-CIO (WGAE) added 22 digital media companies as signatories in 2009. Thirty writers have become guild members as a result of digital media work covered by guild contracts this year. The exponential increase in digital media projects covered by the WGAE is the result of the union’s focus on new organizing.
"The business models, distribution structures, and creative opportunities in digital media are still being developed. The fundamental goal of the Writers Guild 2.0 initiative is to ensure that creators are at the table as decisions are made about these basic issues,” said WGAE Executive Director Lowell Peterson. “The enormous potential of digital media won't mean much if writers and other creators can't make a living, or if they must cede creative control."
Rapid growth in signatories shows that digital media creators feel a strong need for guild representation. Digital media producers say they seek the same benefits in guild membership as any other writer, such as healthcare, credit for their work and a community willing to fight for their rights.
Matt Koff, co-writer of the show “9am Meeting”: “I joined the guild for the same reasons as everyone else: respect, recognition, and Joss Whedon's eternal friendship."
From Don Hooper, writer and owner of Jamtown Films Productions: “I joined the WGA so that I wouldn’t die; out-of-pocket health care, just like my failed attempts at sustaining a Hollywood drug addiction, is just way too expensive.”
Ben Zelevansky of writing team BenandAlex.tv: “Joining the Writers Guild means becoming a part of the larger community of creative professionals. But mostly I just wanted to meet Paddy Chayefsky. Turns out he's been dead for about 30 years. At least now I can write off movie tickets on my taxes.”
Alex Bloom of BenandAlex.tv says he joined the WGAE for legitimacy, “if someone doesn't think what I've written is funny, I can shove my guild card in their face and cackle.”
Dan McNamara, writer/creator of “The Bear, The Cloud and God”: "I got a discount on shoes!" (Members do indeed get an annual discount).
New WGAE signatories announced in the last quarter of 2009 are:
9am Meeting – Award winning animated web series, ny.channel101.com/show.php?show=200
AGBK – A Brooklyn-based production company creating and producing of web series, short films for the web, branded entertainment/web commercials and music videos which have won awards in national and international festivals. AG-BK.com
The Bear, the Cloud and God – Animated web series which has also aired on cable channel G4TV. ny.channel101.com/show.php?show=213
The Battery ’s Down – Live action musical web series featuring cameos from top Broadway stars. Soundtrack records available. thebatterysdown.com
Confirmed Bachelors – Animated web comedy series starring radio star Frank DeCaro, uses 1970's Hanna-Barbera-style animation. www.theconfirmedbachelors.com
Alex Bloom and Ben Zelevansky – Live action and animated web series ranked #16 in the iTunes directory of comedy podcasts. benandalex.tv
Downsized – Live action web series praised by Tubefilter and Visioweb.Tv. Second season will stream on StrikeTV. downsizedthewebseries.com
Duder – Webby award winning live action series with 22 episodes online. duder.com
Gavin Lance – A unique live action take on the comic book genre. gavinlance.com
Guy and Cut Films – Production company specializing in original web series and short films. guyandcut.com/reel.html
Jamtown Films – Production company's work has been official film/pilot selections in New York TV Festival, Big Apple Film Festival, Queens International Film Festival and more. jamtownfilms.com
Respect Films – Production company producing live action web series including psychedelic sci-fi show The Third Age and for NFL Writers Room for ESPN, among others. respectfilms.com
Undead New York – Original animated web series in production.
The Writers Guild of America, East, AFL-CIO, is a labor union representing writers in motion pictures, television, cable, digital media, and broadcast news. The WGAE conducts programs, seminars, and events on issues of interest to, and on behalf of, writers. In addition, it represents writers’ interests on the legislative level.
For more information on the Writers Guild of America, East, visit www.wgaeast.org.
555 W 57th St., NY, NY 10019
(212) 767-7800
Monday, January 4, 2010
Walt Disney's Grandson Facing Gun, Drug Charges
By Pandora Young, FishbowlLAPatrick Disney Miller, grandson of Walt Disney, is facing some serious prison time. From the Associated Press:
Cops say they found 13 handguns, a rifle, an illegal assault rifle and various drugs at the defendant's Woodland Hills home. Thanks to a 2005 drug conviction in Fresno, Miller is barred from owning guns or ammunition, say prosecutors.
LAPD officers obtained the search warrant after running a background check on Miller when they discovered he had allegedly purchased ammunition, according to the D.A.'s office.
Miller, 42, was taken into custody about 5:30 a.m. Wednesday at his home in Woodland Hills, said Officer Rosario Herrera of the Los Angeles Police Department's Media Relations unit.
Miller was booked for "possession of a firearm by a felon" and selling ammunition, Herrera said. Information on Miller's felony background was not immediately known.
The District Attorney's office filed a felony warrant against Miller on Monday alleging possession of ammunition, said Jane Robison of the DA's office. Investigators served the warrant and arrested Miller.
Miller was be arraigned Van Nuys Superior Court. LAPD officers obtained the search warrant after running a background check on Miller when they 
discovered he had allegedly purchased ammunition, according to the D.A.'s office.
discovered he had allegedly purchased ammunition, according to the D.A.'s office.Miller pleaded not guilty to charges of illegal possession of guns and drugs on Wednesday in a California court and was remanded in custody, authorities said.
He had been freed on a $ 35,000 dollar bail, but at Thursday's arraignment the judge raised the amount to $ 550,000 dollars and Miller was taken into custody. A new hearing was set for February 4.
Miller's mother is Diane Disney Miller, the eldest daughter of the famous and late Walt Disney. She is married to Ronald William Miller and together they have seven children where Patrick Disney Miller is their youngest.
If convicted of all charges, Miller faces more than eight years in state prison.
Time Warner and Fox Reach a Cable Deal
By BRIAN STELTERThe New York Times
The News Corporation and Time Warner Cable struck a deal just in time for the Sugar Bowl.
The two companies said Friday evening that they had agreed on new terms for a contract covering Fox stations in New York, Los Angeles, Orlando and other markets, averting a blackout of the weekend’s college bowl games in millions of homes.
They did not disclose the terms. The deal between the News Corporation and Time Warner caps weeks of sparring over the price that the cable company — and by extension its customers — should pay to watch Fox, ahead of an end-of-the-year contract expiration.
Analysts had expected that the deal would set a new high-water mark for local TV stations that want sizable subscriber fees in exchange for so-called retransmission rights.
In tense negotiations with Time Warner Cable, Fox had demanded about a dollar a subscriber per month, far more than other stations have received. Time Warner Cable thought 30 cents was more reasonable, said people briefed on the talks who insisted on anonymity because the specifics of the talks were confidential.
Most likely, the two companies reached a compromise on the price, but both refused to comment Friday on the figure.
“We’re pleased that, after months of negotiations, we were able to reach a fair agreement with Time Warner Cable — one that recognizes the value of our programming,” said Chase Carey, the president of News Corporation, in a statement.
Time Warner Cable’s president, Glenn Britt, called it a “reasonable deal.”
Meanwhile, customers of another major cable operator, Cablevision, were reminded Friday of what can happen when carriage talks break down. The Food Network and HGTV were unexpectedly removed from Cablevision’s lineups in New York, New Jersey and Connecticut shortly after the stroke of midnight, sending angry customers to their keyboards and phones to demand answers. Cable and satellite operators pay media firms for the right to carry channels, and those fees are reflected in customers’ bills.
Cable operators have historically resisted paying directly for the right to retransmit stations, but they have softened their stance in recent years, and some stations now receive between 10 cents and 40 cents a month per subscriber.
Fox asserted it deserved more. Rupert Murdoch, the News Corporation chairman, has positioned the company as a leader in “creating an economic template for the future.” Every cent represents millions of dollars in monthly revenue.
Analysts say the Fox station group’s aggressive stance could benefit other broadcasters. In a report last month, analysts at UBS said the current dispute was “likely a harbinger of things to come as consumers have more alternatives to cable than ever before,” giving programmers more leverage in negotiations.
The big fee for Fox was part of a larger package of News Corporation channel renewals, which put cable channels like FX at similar risk of vanishing from Time Warner Cable systems, at least temporarily.
Fee negotiations are usually conducted discreetly, and deals are often completed close to their deadlines without viewers ever knowing. But Fox’s clash with Time Warner Cable broke out in public in November when the cable operator started a campaign to hold the line on programmer fee increases.
Some networks, it said on its Web site, “are trying to boost their bottom line by squeezing cable TV viewers like you — and threatening to pull the plug on popular shows if we don’t roll over.”
Networks say the fee increases are a matter of survival — or at least are necessary to keep producing quality programming.
Time Warner Cable representatives traveled to Los Angeles for talks with News Corporation early in the week. Under pressure from the government and from viewers to stave off a blackout, representatives for both sides met in a conference room on the Fox studio lot at 10 a.m. Pacific time on Thursday, and talks continued through Friday evening, said an executive briefed on the talks who was not authorized to speak publicly.
The Fox negotiators had the option to pull the plug after the contract expired early Friday morning, but they decided to keep talking.
On the other side, the Food Network and HGTV outage affected about 3.1 million subscribers in the New York metropolitan area on Friday. The owner of the popular channels, Scripps Networks, says it deserves more cash for them. “The distribution rates Cablevision pays for Food and HGTV are among the lowest in the industry,” said Kenneth W. Lowe, the chief executive of Scripps Networks Interactive.
According to the research firm SNL Kagan, distributors pay about 8 cents on average for Food Network and 13 cents for HGTV. Scripps was believed to be asking for about triple that amount, or roughly 25 cents for Food and 40 cents for HGTV.
Cablevision took a hard line in its own statement Friday, saying that it had “no expectation of carrying” Scripps’s programming again, “given the dramatic changes in their approach to working with distributors to reach television viewers.”
Scripps’s contracts with Time Warner Cable also expired on Dec. 31, but those two companies continued talking into the new year without an interruption in programming.
According to The Washington Post, About 3.1 million subscribers lost access to HGTV and the Food Network on Friday after Scripps pulled its programming while negotiating a new contract with the cable provider.
In a statement late Sunday, Scripps said more than six months of negotiations haven't been able to produce an agreement, and its recent requests for sit-down discussions have been rejected. Scripps said Cablevision currently pays about 25 cents per subscriber for the combined networks, and described the fee increase it's asking for as "fair market rate" for popular networks.
"We regret deeply the interruption of service for Cablevision customers who rely on us for quality programming," the company said.
A version of this article appeared in print on January 2, 2010, on page B1 of the New York edition.
Get Home Delivery to read a hard copy of The New York Times every day.
Thursday, December 31, 2009
138 Journalists Died On The Job In 2009
In the past year, 138 journalists have died in the course of their work, the majority were murdered or killed.The International Federation of Journalists reports that 113 were murdered or killed in other violence, while the remaining 24 died in work-related accidents.
The most recent journalist to be killed was Canadian Michelle Lang, who died in a roadside bomb blast in Afghanistan on Tuesday.
The report identifies the Philippines, Mexico and Somalia as the most dangerous countries for journalists to work in. Last month 31 journalists were killed in the Philippines after being abducted.
In Iraq, the worst country for fatalities among journalists over the past decade, five media workers were killed this year. The Federation argues that, in spite of a pledge by the UN Security Council in 2006, journalists are not given enough protection, especially in countries where armed conflicts are taking place.
The International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) today called for more action from governments and the United Nations to protect media.
"Last year's drop in the murder rate of journalists has been short lived," said Jim Boumelha, IFJ President. "The devastating massacre of 31 journalists and media staff in the Philippines in November and fresh violence against colleagues in Mexico and Somalia have made this a year of terrible bloodshed for media."The IFJ list of work related media killings is coordinated with the International News Safety Institute (INSI) and contains 137 journalists and media personnel who died during 2009 against 109 killings recorded in 2008. Of these, 24 were accidental deaths while journalists were at work.
The question is whether governments are listening or ready to take their responsibilities seriously," said Aidan White, IFJ General Secretary. "There is no room for complacency and indifference. The crisis facing media threatens innocent lives and democracy itself."
As of 31 December, the IFJ recorded the following information on killings of journalists and media staff in 2009:
Targeted killings: 113
Accidental deaths: 24
Overall killed : 137
The deadliest region, for the second year running, was Asia Pacific with 52 journalists and media personnel killed. The Philippines have the region's highest death toll, following the 23 November Maguindano province which claimed 31 lives of media victims.Other countries with high numbers of media fatalities are:
Mexico 13
Somalia 9
Pakistan 7
Russia 6
In 2008, Iraq, India and Mexico were the most dangerous countries in the world. Russia has this year broken into the top five most dangerous countries.
The IFJ is supporting a campaign against impunity in the country and has launched an online database on cases of journalists' murders in collaboration with two leading Russian monitors of abuses against journalists; the Glasnost Defence Foundation and the Centre for Journalism in Extreme Conditions.
The list of journalists and media staff killed in 2009 is available here
The full IFJ report on journalists and media staff killed in 2009 will be published mid January 2010.
The list of journalists and media staff killed in 2009 is available here
The full IFJ report on journalists and media staff killed in 2009 will be published mid January 2010.
This year's death toll of 138 compares with 109 last year and 175 in 2007. This is another sign of the dangerous world we live in. Let's hope for a better 2010.
For more information, please contact IFJ: http://www.ifj.org/en
Jim Boumelha, President: +44 1865723450
Aidan White, General Secretary: +32 478258669
Ernest Sagaga, Communications Officer: +32 2 235 22 07/+32 477 71 40 29
The IFJ represents over 600,000 journalists in 125 countries around the world. The International Federation of Journalists is the world's largest organisation of journalists. First established in 1926, it was relaunched in 1946 and again, in its present form, in 1952.
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
Broadcasters' Woes Could Spell Trouble for Free TV
By ANDREW VANACORE, AP Business Writer
Assailed by cable and the Web, broadcast TV looks to build a new business model
For more than 60 years, TV stations have broadcast news, sports and entertainment for free and made their money by showing commercials. That might not work much longer.
The business model is unraveling at ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox and the local stations that carry the networks' programming. Cable TV and the Web have fractured the audience for free TV and siphoned its ad dollars. The recession has squeezed advertising further, forcing broadcasters to accelerate their push for new revenue to pay for programming.
That will play out in living rooms across the country. The changes could mean higher cable or satellite TV bills, as the networks and local stations squeeze more fees from pay-TV providers such as Comcast and DirecTV for the right to show broadcast TV channels in their lineups. The networks might even ditch free broadcast signals in the next few years. Instead, they could operate as cable channels — a move that could spell the end of free TV as Americans have known it since the 1940s.
The future of free TV also could be altered as the biggest pay-TV provider, Comcast Corp., prepares to take control of NBC. Comcast has not signaled plans to end NBC's free broadcasts. But Jeff Zucker, who runs NBC and its sister cable channels such as CNBC and Bravo, told investors this month that "the cable model is just superior to the broadcast model."
The traditional broadcast model works like this: CBS, NBC, ABC and Fox distribute shows through a network of local stations. The networks own a few stations in big markets, but most are "affiliates," owned by separate companies.
"Good programing is expensive," Rupert Murdoch, whose News Corp. owns Fox, told a shareholder meeting this fall. "It can no longer be supported solely by advertising revenues."
Fox is pursuing its strategy in public, warning that its broadcasts — including college football bowl games — could go dark Friday for subscribers of Time Warner Cable, unless the pay-TV operator gives Fox higher fees. For its part, Time Warner Cable is asking customers whether it should "roll over" or "get tough" in negotiations.
Traditionally the networks paid affiliates to broadcast their shows, though those fees have dwindled to near nothing as local stations have seen their audience shrink. What hasn't changed is where the money mainly comes from: advertising.
Cable channels make most of their money by charging pay-TV providers a monthly fee per subscriber for their programing. On average, the pay-TV providers pay about 26 cents for each channel they carry, according to research firm SNL Kagan. A channel as highly rated as ESPN can get close to $4, while some, such as MTV2, go for just a few pennies.
With both advertising and fees, ESPN has seen its revenue grow to $6.3 billion this year from $1.8 billion a decade ago, according to SNL Kagan estimates. It has been able to bid for premium events that networks had traditionally aired, such as football games. Cable channels also have been able to fund high-quality shows, such as AMC's "Mad Men," rather than recycling movies and TV series.
That, plus a growing number of channels, has given cable a bigger share of the ad pie. In 1998, cable channels drew roughly $9.1 billion, or 24 percent of total TV ad spending, according to the Television Bureau of Advertising. By 2008, they were getting $21.6 billion, or 39 percent.
Having two revenue streams — advertising and fees from pay-TV providers — has insulated cable channels from the recession. In contrast, over-the-air stations have been forced to cut staff, and at least two broadcast groups sought bankruptcy protection this year.
Fox illustrates the trend: Its broadcast operations reported a 54 percent drop in operating income for the quarter that ended in September. Its cable channels, which include Fox News and FX, grew their operating income 41 percent.
Analyst Tom Love of Zenith Optimedia said he expects the big networks will end the year with a 9 percent drop in ad revenue, followed by an 8 percent drop in 2010 and zero growth in 2011.
A small chunk of the ad revenue is being recouped online, where the networks sell episodes for a few dollars each or run ads alongside shows on sites such as Hulu. Media economist Jack Myers projects online video advertising will grow into a $2 billion business by 2012, from just $350 million to $400 million this year.
But that is not significant enough to make up for the lost ad revenue on the airwaves.
Advertisers spent $34 billion on broadcast commercials in 2008, down by $2.4 billion from two years earlier, according to the Television Bureau of Advertising.
So rather than wait for the Internet to become a bigger source of income, the networks and local stations are mimicking what cable channels do: They're charging pay-TV companies a monthly fee per subscriber to carry their programming.
Since 1994, the Federal Communications Commission has let networks and their affiliates seek payments for including their programming in the pay-TV lineup. Not everyone demanded payments at first. Instead they relied on the broader audience that cable and satellite gave them to increase what they could charge advertisers.
The big networks also were content to let their broadcast stations essentially be subsidized by higher fees for the cable channels that fell under the same corporate umbrella. A pay-TV company negotiating with the Walt Disney Co., which owns ABC, is likely paying more for the ABC Family channel than it otherwise would, with the extra assumed to help Disney cover its costs for the ABC network broadcasts.
But over time — such contracts generally run about three years — more networks began demanding payments for the stations they own. And affiliates already receiving the fees have bargained for more money.
Some talks have been tense. In 2007, Sinclair Broadcast Group, which operates 32 network-affiliated stations around the country, pulled its signals for nearly a month from Mediacom Communications Corp., which provides cable TV to about 1.3 million subscribers, mainly in small cities.
The American Cable Association says its members — mainly small cable TV providers — have seen their costs for carrying local TV stations more than triple over the past three years. The group's head, Matt Polka, says those fees have gone "straight to consumers' pocketbooks" in the form of higher cable bills.
Gannett Co., for instance, which operates 23 stations, has taken in $56 million in fees from pay-TV operators this year after negotiating a new batch of agreements, up from $18 million in 2008. Dave Lougee, president of Gannett's broadcast arm, defends the fees, saying "broadcasters were late to the game in really starting to go after the fair market value of their signals."
Analysts estimate CBS managed to get as much as 50 cents per subscriber in its most recent talks with pay-TV providers that carry CBS-owned stations. CBS Corp. chief Leslie Moonves said such fees should add "hundreds of millions of dollars to revenues annually."
That could be just the beginning. CBS and Fox are also asking for a portion of the fees that their affiliates get, arguing that the networks' shows are what give local stations the leverage to ask for fees.
Over time, the networks might be able to get even more money by abandoning the affiliate structure and undoing a key element of free TV.
Here's why: Pay-TV providers are paying the networks only for the stations the networks own. That amounts to a little less than a third of the TV audience, which means local affiliates recoup two-thirds of the fees. If a network operated purely as a cable channel and cut the affiliates out, the network could get the fees for the entire pay-TV audience.
If forced to go independent, affiliates would have to air their own programming, including local news and syndicated shows.
Fitch Ratings analyst Jamie Rizzo predicts that at least one of the four broadcast networks "could explore" becoming a cable channel as early as 2011.
Any shift would take years, as the networks untangle complicated affiliate contracts. At an analyst conference last year, CBS's Moonves called the idea an "a very interesting proposition." But he added that it "would really change the universe that we're in."
Assailed by cable and the Web, broadcast TV looks to build a new business model
For more than 60 years, TV stations have broadcast news, sports and entertainment for free and made their money by showing commercials. That might not work much longer.
The business model is unraveling at ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox and the local stations that carry the networks' programming. Cable TV and the Web have fractured the audience for free TV and siphoned its ad dollars. The recession has squeezed advertising further, forcing broadcasters to accelerate their push for new revenue to pay for programming.
That will play out in living rooms across the country. The changes could mean higher cable or satellite TV bills, as the networks and local stations squeeze more fees from pay-TV providers such as Comcast and DirecTV for the right to show broadcast TV channels in their lineups. The networks might even ditch free broadcast signals in the next few years. Instead, they could operate as cable channels — a move that could spell the end of free TV as Americans have known it since the 1940s.
The future of free TV also could be altered as the biggest pay-TV provider, Comcast Corp., prepares to take control of NBC. Comcast has not signaled plans to end NBC's free broadcasts. But Jeff Zucker, who runs NBC and its sister cable channels such as CNBC and Bravo, told investors this month that "the cable model is just superior to the broadcast model."
The traditional broadcast model works like this: CBS, NBC, ABC and Fox distribute shows through a network of local stations. The networks own a few stations in big markets, but most are "affiliates," owned by separate companies.
"Good programing is expensive," Rupert Murdoch, whose News Corp. owns Fox, told a shareholder meeting this fall. "It can no longer be supported solely by advertising revenues."
Fox is pursuing its strategy in public, warning that its broadcasts — including college football bowl games — could go dark Friday for subscribers of Time Warner Cable, unless the pay-TV operator gives Fox higher fees. For its part, Time Warner Cable is asking customers whether it should "roll over" or "get tough" in negotiations.
Traditionally the networks paid affiliates to broadcast their shows, though those fees have dwindled to near nothing as local stations have seen their audience shrink. What hasn't changed is where the money mainly comes from: advertising.
Cable channels make most of their money by charging pay-TV providers a monthly fee per subscriber for their programing. On average, the pay-TV providers pay about 26 cents for each channel they carry, according to research firm SNL Kagan. A channel as highly rated as ESPN can get close to $4, while some, such as MTV2, go for just a few pennies.
With both advertising and fees, ESPN has seen its revenue grow to $6.3 billion this year from $1.8 billion a decade ago, according to SNL Kagan estimates. It has been able to bid for premium events that networks had traditionally aired, such as football games. Cable channels also have been able to fund high-quality shows, such as AMC's "Mad Men," rather than recycling movies and TV series.
That, plus a growing number of channels, has given cable a bigger share of the ad pie. In 1998, cable channels drew roughly $9.1 billion, or 24 percent of total TV ad spending, according to the Television Bureau of Advertising. By 2008, they were getting $21.6 billion, or 39 percent.
Having two revenue streams — advertising and fees from pay-TV providers — has insulated cable channels from the recession. In contrast, over-the-air stations have been forced to cut staff, and at least two broadcast groups sought bankruptcy protection this year.
Fox illustrates the trend: Its broadcast operations reported a 54 percent drop in operating income for the quarter that ended in September. Its cable channels, which include Fox News and FX, grew their operating income 41 percent.
Analyst Tom Love of Zenith Optimedia said he expects the big networks will end the year with a 9 percent drop in ad revenue, followed by an 8 percent drop in 2010 and zero growth in 2011.
A small chunk of the ad revenue is being recouped online, where the networks sell episodes for a few dollars each or run ads alongside shows on sites such as Hulu. Media economist Jack Myers projects online video advertising will grow into a $2 billion business by 2012, from just $350 million to $400 million this year.
But that is not significant enough to make up for the lost ad revenue on the airwaves.
Advertisers spent $34 billion on broadcast commercials in 2008, down by $2.4 billion from two years earlier, according to the Television Bureau of Advertising.
So rather than wait for the Internet to become a bigger source of income, the networks and local stations are mimicking what cable channels do: They're charging pay-TV companies a monthly fee per subscriber to carry their programming.
Since 1994, the Federal Communications Commission has let networks and their affiliates seek payments for including their programming in the pay-TV lineup. Not everyone demanded payments at first. Instead they relied on the broader audience that cable and satellite gave them to increase what they could charge advertisers.
The big networks also were content to let their broadcast stations essentially be subsidized by higher fees for the cable channels that fell under the same corporate umbrella. A pay-TV company negotiating with the Walt Disney Co., which owns ABC, is likely paying more for the ABC Family channel than it otherwise would, with the extra assumed to help Disney cover its costs for the ABC network broadcasts.
But over time — such contracts generally run about three years — more networks began demanding payments for the stations they own. And affiliates already receiving the fees have bargained for more money.
Some talks have been tense. In 2007, Sinclair Broadcast Group, which operates 32 network-affiliated stations around the country, pulled its signals for nearly a month from Mediacom Communications Corp., which provides cable TV to about 1.3 million subscribers, mainly in small cities.
The American Cable Association says its members — mainly small cable TV providers — have seen their costs for carrying local TV stations more than triple over the past three years. The group's head, Matt Polka, says those fees have gone "straight to consumers' pocketbooks" in the form of higher cable bills.
Gannett Co., for instance, which operates 23 stations, has taken in $56 million in fees from pay-TV operators this year after negotiating a new batch of agreements, up from $18 million in 2008. Dave Lougee, president of Gannett's broadcast arm, defends the fees, saying "broadcasters were late to the game in really starting to go after the fair market value of their signals."
Analysts estimate CBS managed to get as much as 50 cents per subscriber in its most recent talks with pay-TV providers that carry CBS-owned stations. CBS Corp. chief Leslie Moonves said such fees should add "hundreds of millions of dollars to revenues annually."
That could be just the beginning. CBS and Fox are also asking for a portion of the fees that their affiliates get, arguing that the networks' shows are what give local stations the leverage to ask for fees.
Over time, the networks might be able to get even more money by abandoning the affiliate structure and undoing a key element of free TV.
Here's why: Pay-TV providers are paying the networks only for the stations the networks own. That amounts to a little less than a third of the TV audience, which means local affiliates recoup two-thirds of the fees. If a network operated purely as a cable channel and cut the affiliates out, the network could get the fees for the entire pay-TV audience.
If forced to go independent, affiliates would have to air their own programming, including local news and syndicated shows.
Fitch Ratings analyst Jamie Rizzo predicts that at least one of the four broadcast networks "could explore" becoming a cable channel as early as 2011.
Any shift would take years, as the networks untangle complicated affiliate contracts. At an analyst conference last year, CBS's Moonves called the idea an "a very interesting proposition." But he added that it "would really change the universe that we're in."
Monday, December 28, 2009
Fewer Actors, Other Trends You'll See in 2010
By SUZANNE VRANICA
"There are lots of issues and problems in the world, and we are seeing a rise in corporations doing good, because government can only go so far. There are lots of issues and problems in the world, and it's cool to do good," says Rob Schwartz, chief creative officer of Omnicom Group's TBWA/Chiat/Day Los Angeles. Industry executives also are convinced it will be effective.
Another of next year's prominent themes will be a throwback to the early days of television. Ad executives say they expect an increase in live TV commercials, which made a comeback in 2009.
Social-network personalities will make their way to mass-media stardom next year, says Christian Haas, creative director of Omnicom's Goodby Silverstein & Partners. Mr. Haas says consumers will see the ubiquitous press quotes that pepper movie and car ads share screen time with the average Joe's tweets.
Divided Attention
TV networks are increasingly looking for ways to stop consumers from ad-zapping, says Mr. Gagnon of DraftFCB. He says TV viewers will see more split screens that give them a glimpse of what is going on behind the scenes of a show while a commercial runs on the other side of the split.
DraftFCB is looking at doing a test of the ad format for one of its clients during a prime-time talk show. Consumers would see the talk-show host getting ready for his next segment on one side of the screen while the ad plays on the other side. Expect to see more of these ads during live programs and sporting events, Mr. Gagnon says.
Mobile, for Real This Time
Mobile advertising has long been promised and largely underdelivered. David Lubars, chief creative officer of Omnicom's BBDO, says he thinks a breakthrough is right around the corner. It'll have something to do with longer-form entertainment, he says.
Daryl Lee, president of global communications planning at Interpublic's Universal McCann, predicts mobile marketing will find a purpose: helping consumers find what they are looking for at local stores, probably in the form of apps, gadgets and widgets, not regular ads.
Tiger Fallout
As the fallout from Tiger Woods's alleged infidelities continues, the episode will have a drastic effect on sports marketing, says Tony Ponturo, former head of global sports marketing for Anheuser-Busch InBev. Consumers will see fewer big-name celebrities and athletes pitching for brands. Mr. Ponturo says marketers will look more to sponsor teams, leagues and events, rather than individuals, an approach with fewer risks.
Getting to Know You
Consumers will give their personal information in return for getting the ads they want to see, predicts Tracy Scheppach, innovations director at Publicis Groupe's Starcom MediaVest Group. "I just see the stuff I have opted to receive because I am a mom—that's advertising," she adds.
Cheaper Pitchmen: Employees
Employees are well-versed in the products they represent, and their enthusiasm can enhance a brand exponentially on the Web, says Marian Salzman, a trend spotter for Havas's Euro RSCG Worldwide. Best Buy has been ahead of this curve, Ms. Salzman says, with employees, called Blue Shirts, who pitch for Best Buy in TV ads and on Twitter, Ms. Salzman says.
Lux 2.0
Luxury, one of the last industries to embrace the Web, will leapfrog other categories in digital marketing, says Mr. Lee of Universal McCann, "as we watch the rapid rise of the luxury geek."
Avatar Envy
Thanks to the new sophistication in animation, "We are going to see more animation and virtual talent in ads. It's cheaper than hiring actors," and it avoids the risk of having your brand associated with a celebrity, says Mr. Gagnon of DraftFCB.
Watch One, Get One Free
Paying for content is the foundation of the ad business. But as consumers tune out ad messages, companies that offer tangible benefits will most likely win their attention, says Mr. Haas of Goodby. Sprint Nextel started offering free Wi-Fi in the airport; Google is paying for it on the plane. "Anyone interested in comping my cable modem at home?" Mr. Haas says.
Less Glitz
More ads will be made on the cheap, as advertisers continue to cut costs and seek a way to connect with digitally savvy consumers who see the world through their iPhone, says Mr. Schwartz of TBWA.
Write to Suzanne Vranica at suzanne.vranica@wsj.com
The Wall Street Journal
The economy may continue its gradual recovery next year, but advertising is expected to show the influence of the recession through 2010.
Don't expect a letup in the rough-and-tumble sales pitches that hit the airwaves, Web and magazines this year, as advertisers like Campbell Soup and Verizon Wireless, owned by Verizon Communications and Vodafone, took direct aim at their competitors. Advertising executives expect such barbed comparison ads to continue.
Other companies, meanwhile, will be showing their softer sides. In the bleak aftermath of the recession, many marketers think consumers will respond to brands they perceive as giving back to the community.
PepsiCo, for example, recently decided to bypass Super Bowl advertising in favor of an online campaign that doles out funds for charitable purposes.
"There are lots of issues and problems in the world, and we are seeing a rise in corporations doing good, because government can only go so far. There are lots of issues and problems in the world, and it's cool to do good," says Rob Schwartz, chief creative officer of Omnicom Group's TBWA/Chiat/Day Los Angeles. Industry executives also are convinced it will be effective.
Another of next year's prominent themes will be a throwback to the early days of television. Ad executives say they expect an increase in live TV commercials, which made a comeback in 2009.
In the spots, talk-show hosts like Jimmy Kimmel perform skits featuring the advertiser's product. "We are looking at ways to keep the consumer engaged, and live TV ads are helping us do that," says Richard Gagnon, chief media officer at Interpublic Group's DraftFCB.
Madison Avenue executives say they will rely on these and other strategies, such as using fewer actors and more animated characters, and spots that share the screen with TV programs to thwart ad-skipping. Here's what they say you'll be seeing in 2010.
Rising Stars
Rising Stars
Social-network personalities will make their way to mass-media stardom next year, says Christian Haas, creative director of Omnicom's Goodby Silverstein & Partners. Mr. Haas says consumers will see the ubiquitous press quotes that pepper movie and car ads share screen time with the average Joe's tweets.
Divided Attention
TV networks are increasingly looking for ways to stop consumers from ad-zapping, says Mr. Gagnon of DraftFCB. He says TV viewers will see more split screens that give them a glimpse of what is going on behind the scenes of a show while a commercial runs on the other side of the split.
DraftFCB is looking at doing a test of the ad format for one of its clients during a prime-time talk show. Consumers would see the talk-show host getting ready for his next segment on one side of the screen while the ad plays on the other side. Expect to see more of these ads during live programs and sporting events, Mr. Gagnon says.
Mobile, for Real This Time
Mobile advertising has long been promised and largely underdelivered. David Lubars, chief creative officer of Omnicom's BBDO, says he thinks a breakthrough is right around the corner. It'll have something to do with longer-form entertainment, he says.
Daryl Lee, president of global communications planning at Interpublic's Universal McCann, predicts mobile marketing will find a purpose: helping consumers find what they are looking for at local stores, probably in the form of apps, gadgets and widgets, not regular ads.
Tiger Fallout
As the fallout from Tiger Woods's alleged infidelities continues, the episode will have a drastic effect on sports marketing, says Tony Ponturo, former head of global sports marketing for Anheuser-Busch InBev. Consumers will see fewer big-name celebrities and athletes pitching for brands. Mr. Ponturo says marketers will look more to sponsor teams, leagues and events, rather than individuals, an approach with fewer risks.
Getting to Know You
Consumers will give their personal information in return for getting the ads they want to see, predicts Tracy Scheppach, innovations director at Publicis Groupe's Starcom MediaVest Group. "I just see the stuff I have opted to receive because I am a mom—that's advertising," she adds.
Cheaper Pitchmen: Employees
Employees are well-versed in the products they represent, and their enthusiasm can enhance a brand exponentially on the Web, says Marian Salzman, a trend spotter for Havas's Euro RSCG Worldwide. Best Buy has been ahead of this curve, Ms. Salzman says, with employees, called Blue Shirts, who pitch for Best Buy in TV ads and on Twitter, Ms. Salzman says.
Lux 2.0
Luxury, one of the last industries to embrace the Web, will leapfrog other categories in digital marketing, says Mr. Lee of Universal McCann, "as we watch the rapid rise of the luxury geek."
Avatar Envy
Thanks to the new sophistication in animation, "We are going to see more animation and virtual talent in ads. It's cheaper than hiring actors," and it avoids the risk of having your brand associated with a celebrity, says Mr. Gagnon of DraftFCB.
Watch One, Get One Free
Paying for content is the foundation of the ad business. But as consumers tune out ad messages, companies that offer tangible benefits will most likely win their attention, says Mr. Haas of Goodby. Sprint Nextel started offering free Wi-Fi in the airport; Google is paying for it on the plane. "Anyone interested in comping my cable modem at home?" Mr. Haas says.
Less Glitz
More ads will be made on the cheap, as advertisers continue to cut costs and seek a way to connect with digitally savvy consumers who see the world through their iPhone, says Mr. Schwartz of TBWA.
Write to Suzanne Vranica at suzanne.vranica@wsj.com
The Wall Street Journal is Great! Subscribe Now
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Labor's Messy Health Care Bargain
By Harold Meyerson
The Washington Post
The Net roots is up in arms about the Senate's version of health-care reform, with many rooters demanding it be voted down. The liberal establishmentarians lament the compromises they were compelled to accept but support the bill's passage. In between the two, indignant and stuck, is organized labor.
"There's an excise tax on policies, but there's no public option to hold down the cost of those policies," says Leo Gerard, president of the United Steelworkers. "There's no Medicare buy-in, no pay-or-play mandate for employers. There's no Canadian reimportation to hold down drug costs, on the grounds of 'safety.' No one gets sick from Canadian reimported drugs," adds Gerard, who is Canadian. "I know a guy who got sick from a Chinese-made ingredient in an American drug, but there's no restriction on Chinese drug imports."
Gerard is hardly alone in his criticisms. Labor believes, rightly, that the cost controls in the Senate bill come chiefly from insurance policy holders (among them, labor's members), rather than from insurance and drug companies. Both the AFL-CIO and the Service Employees International Union have condemned these provisions, while hailing the bill's epochal creation of affordable health insurance for 30 million Americans. They're careful, too, to exempt President Obama from their criticisms.
"I'm not blaming the president," says Gerard. "He wants to believe people will do the right thing."
The unions have few illusions that the public option will be restored in the House-Senate conference committee, but they are working to promote the chief funding mechanism in the House bill (a tax hike on individuals with incomes over $500,000 and couples with incomes over $1 million) over that in the Senate bill (a tax that, to start, will fall on health insurance policies that cost more than $23,000 for a family of four).
With medical costs unchecked by a public option and drug reimportation, they fear that the value of their members' policies will rise above the threshold by the middle of the next decade.
There's a political problem as well. During the fall of 2008, the unions spent millions persuading older working-class whites to vote their pocketbooks instead of their prejudices in such key swing states as Pennsylvania and Ohio.
Just about the only issue that moved these voters from John McCain's column to Barack Obama's, they discovered, was that McCain supported taxing their members' health insurance and Obama didn't. "We negotiate and fight hard for our health-care benefits," said one widely distributed piece of AFL-CIO literature. "Now, Republican John McCain wants to tax them."
"This was our mantra," says Gerard. "Obama was polling better with our active members than with our retirees, which is very unusual, until we focused on McCain's plan to tax benefits. Our retirees are in expensive plans; that kind of tax would be devastating to them."
Politically, in fact, the tax could set in motion the kind of dynamic that undermined many Great Society anti-poverty programs: taxing the working class to provide benefits to the poor (or, in this case, the uninsured). Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan smashed the Democrats' New Deal coalition by fanning the racial and class tensions endemic to such programs. Does anyone believe that today's Republicans will think better of mounting such attacks?
In theory, the House-Senate conference committee should be able to split the difference on funding by raising the Senate's threshold on taxing insurance policies and combining it with a scaled-back version of the House's millionaire tax. If the conference does that, raises the subsidies for people buying policies on the exchanges and extends Medicaid to more poor families, liberals and labor will likely have gotten all they can plausibly hope for, given the constraints that the Nelsons, Liebermans and Republicans have imposed on the bill.
Labor is boiling mad about those constraints, but unlike some of the Net-rooters, they can't and won't call down curses on the Senate Democrats -- yet. "We've played an inside game," says one of Gerard's fellow union presidents. "We've delivered our criticisms privately." Labor's leaders still hope a scaled-back version of the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) -- the bill that would restore unions' ability to organize private-sector workers -- will pass the Senate next year.
They've seen the White House and congressional Democrats move their way on jobs legislation, and they welcomed last week's unveiling of a $5 billion tax credit to bolster green manufacturing, a long-overdue step toward rebooting manufacturing in America.
But it will take more job creation and the enactment of EFCA to motivate unions to go all out in the 2010 elections. Anything short of that, and their anger will take a toll on the Democrats' electoral prospects.
meyersonh@washpost.com
The Washington Post: Subscribe Home Delivery Service Advertisers PostPoints e-Replica Online Photo Store The Washington Post Store About The Post
Health Interests Spend $600 Million to Sway Congress
by Jonathan D. Salant and Alex Nussbaum
http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20091223/pl_bloomberg/aflbcmedobbk
(Bloomberg) -- More than $600 million has been spent so far this year trying to influence U.S. lawmakers working to overhaul the health-care system, reports show.
The health industry spent $396 million through Sept. 30, more than any other industry and up 9 percent over the same period a year ago, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a Washington-based research group.
Those numbers don’t include spending on lobbying by insurers such as the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association and its member companies, which spent $16.7 million in the first nine months of 2009, compared with $16.2 million in all of 2008.
“The health-care industry has a full-court press on members of Congress,” said Representative Dennis Kucinich, an Ohio Democrat.
Another $200 million has been spent on television advertising for and against overhauling health care, according to TNS Media Intelligence/Campaign Media Analysis Group, an Arlington, Virginia-based company that tracks political advertising.
The U.S. House passed health-care legislation last month. The Senate has overcome procedural hurdles to pave the way for approval of its version by Dec. 24.
Working With Lawmakers
“The Blue Cross and Blue Shield companies represent 100 million people across the country in every zip code and have 80 years of experience in health care,” said Brett Lieberman, a spokesman for the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association in Washington. “We’ve been working with members of Congress sharing that experience.”
The Senate health legislation exempts some nonprofit health plans from a $70 billion tax on the insurance industry, including some Blue Cross plans in Alabama, Michigan and Pennsylvania.
Health-industry shares have risen 18 percent this year, as measured by the Standard & Poor’s 500 Health-Care Index. Tenet Healthcare Corp., the Dallas-based hospital chain, led the index with an almost fivefold gain, followed by Intuitive Surgical Inc. of Sunnyvale, California, a maker of robotic surgical systems, which has more than doubled.
The S&P index of six managed-care insurers has risen 34 percent this year. Cigna Corp. of Philadelphia, up 120 percent, and Coventry Health Care Inc. of Bethesda, Maryland, up 69 percent, have led the advance. The index has jumped 12 percent since Dec. 9, when Senate Democrats dropped a proposal for a government-run plan to compete with private insurers.
Drugmaker Gains
Drug companies have gained 16 percent this year, as measured by the by S&P Pharmaceutical Index. New York-based Pfizer Inc., the world’s largest drugmaker, rose 5.5 percent.
The Senate on Dec. 15 rejected an amendment to allow imports of cheaper drugs from Canada, a provision opposed by the pharmaceutical industry. Drugmakers earlier agreed to contribute $80 billion over 10 years in return for blocking other profit- endangering proposals.
Pfizer’s trade group, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers Association, spent $19.9 million through September. That’s the third-highest amount behind the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Irving, Texas-based Exxon Mobil Corp., and almost as much as the $20.2 million the group spent in 2008.
Lobbyists
There are 3,300 lobbyists registered to lobby on health care, Senate records show, six for each of the 535 members of the House and Senate. More than 1,400 of those lobbying on health care formerly worked for Congress, the White House or federal agencies, including 55 former lawmakers.
“This is the way the political system works,” said Representative Patrick Kennedy, a Rhode Island Democrat. “People curry favor in all kinds of different ways.”
Many of those lobbyists visited the White House to meet with President Barack Obama and top administration officials, according to visitor logs. Health-care visitors included Karen Ignagni, president of America’s Health Insurance Plans, the trade group for private insurers; Phrma President Billy Tauzin, a former U.S. representative; and Richard Kirsch, national campaign manager of Health Care for America Now, a coalition of labor and advocacy groups such as the AFL-CIO.
To contact the reporters on this story: Jonathan D. Salant in Washington at jsalant@bloomberg.net ; Alex Nussbaum in New York anussbaum1@bloomberg.net .
The Washington Post
The Net roots is up in arms about the Senate's version of health-care reform, with many rooters demanding it be voted down. The liberal establishmentarians lament the compromises they were compelled to accept but support the bill's passage. In between the two, indignant and stuck, is organized labor.
"There's an excise tax on policies, but there's no public option to hold down the cost of those policies," says Leo Gerard, president of the United Steelworkers. "There's no Medicare buy-in, no pay-or-play mandate for employers. There's no Canadian reimportation to hold down drug costs, on the grounds of 'safety.' No one gets sick from Canadian reimported drugs," adds Gerard, who is Canadian. "I know a guy who got sick from a Chinese-made ingredient in an American drug, but there's no restriction on Chinese drug imports."
Gerard is hardly alone in his criticisms. Labor believes, rightly, that the cost controls in the Senate bill come chiefly from insurance policy holders (among them, labor's members), rather than from insurance and drug companies. Both the AFL-CIO and the Service Employees International Union have condemned these provisions, while hailing the bill's epochal creation of affordable health insurance for 30 million Americans. They're careful, too, to exempt President Obama from their criticisms.
"I'm not blaming the president," says Gerard. "He wants to believe people will do the right thing."
The unions have few illusions that the public option will be restored in the House-Senate conference committee, but they are working to promote the chief funding mechanism in the House bill (a tax hike on individuals with incomes over $500,000 and couples with incomes over $1 million) over that in the Senate bill (a tax that, to start, will fall on health insurance policies that cost more than $23,000 for a family of four).
With medical costs unchecked by a public option and drug reimportation, they fear that the value of their members' policies will rise above the threshold by the middle of the next decade.
There's a political problem as well. During the fall of 2008, the unions spent millions persuading older working-class whites to vote their pocketbooks instead of their prejudices in such key swing states as Pennsylvania and Ohio.
Just about the only issue that moved these voters from John McCain's column to Barack Obama's, they discovered, was that McCain supported taxing their members' health insurance and Obama didn't. "We negotiate and fight hard for our health-care benefits," said one widely distributed piece of AFL-CIO literature. "Now, Republican John McCain wants to tax them."
"This was our mantra," says Gerard. "Obama was polling better with our active members than with our retirees, which is very unusual, until we focused on McCain's plan to tax benefits. Our retirees are in expensive plans; that kind of tax would be devastating to them."
Politically, in fact, the tax could set in motion the kind of dynamic that undermined many Great Society anti-poverty programs: taxing the working class to provide benefits to the poor (or, in this case, the uninsured). Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan smashed the Democrats' New Deal coalition by fanning the racial and class tensions endemic to such programs. Does anyone believe that today's Republicans will think better of mounting such attacks?
In theory, the House-Senate conference committee should be able to split the difference on funding by raising the Senate's threshold on taxing insurance policies and combining it with a scaled-back version of the House's millionaire tax. If the conference does that, raises the subsidies for people buying policies on the exchanges and extends Medicaid to more poor families, liberals and labor will likely have gotten all they can plausibly hope for, given the constraints that the Nelsons, Liebermans and Republicans have imposed on the bill.
Labor is boiling mad about those constraints, but unlike some of the Net-rooters, they can't and won't call down curses on the Senate Democrats -- yet. "We've played an inside game," says one of Gerard's fellow union presidents. "We've delivered our criticisms privately." Labor's leaders still hope a scaled-back version of the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) -- the bill that would restore unions' ability to organize private-sector workers -- will pass the Senate next year.
They've seen the White House and congressional Democrats move their way on jobs legislation, and they welcomed last week's unveiling of a $5 billion tax credit to bolster green manufacturing, a long-overdue step toward rebooting manufacturing in America.
But it will take more job creation and the enactment of EFCA to motivate unions to go all out in the 2010 elections. Anything short of that, and their anger will take a toll on the Democrats' electoral prospects.
meyersonh@washpost.com
The Washington Post: Subscribe Home Delivery Service Advertisers PostPoints e-Replica Online Photo Store The Washington Post Store About The Post
Health Interests Spend $600 Million to Sway Congress
by Jonathan D. Salant and Alex Nussbaum
http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20091223/pl_bloomberg/aflbcmedobbk
(Bloomberg) -- More than $600 million has been spent so far this year trying to influence U.S. lawmakers working to overhaul the health-care system, reports show.
The health industry spent $396 million through Sept. 30, more than any other industry and up 9 percent over the same period a year ago, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a Washington-based research group.
Those numbers don’t include spending on lobbying by insurers such as the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association and its member companies, which spent $16.7 million in the first nine months of 2009, compared with $16.2 million in all of 2008.
“The health-care industry has a full-court press on members of Congress,” said Representative Dennis Kucinich, an Ohio Democrat.
Another $200 million has been spent on television advertising for and against overhauling health care, according to TNS Media Intelligence/Campaign Media Analysis Group, an Arlington, Virginia-based company that tracks political advertising.
The U.S. House passed health-care legislation last month. The Senate has overcome procedural hurdles to pave the way for approval of its version by Dec. 24.
Working With Lawmakers
“The Blue Cross and Blue Shield companies represent 100 million people across the country in every zip code and have 80 years of experience in health care,” said Brett Lieberman, a spokesman for the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association in Washington. “We’ve been working with members of Congress sharing that experience.”
The Senate health legislation exempts some nonprofit health plans from a $70 billion tax on the insurance industry, including some Blue Cross plans in Alabama, Michigan and Pennsylvania.
Health-industry shares have risen 18 percent this year, as measured by the Standard & Poor’s 500 Health-Care Index. Tenet Healthcare Corp., the Dallas-based hospital chain, led the index with an almost fivefold gain, followed by Intuitive Surgical Inc. of Sunnyvale, California, a maker of robotic surgical systems, which has more than doubled.
The S&P index of six managed-care insurers has risen 34 percent this year. Cigna Corp. of Philadelphia, up 120 percent, and Coventry Health Care Inc. of Bethesda, Maryland, up 69 percent, have led the advance. The index has jumped 12 percent since Dec. 9, when Senate Democrats dropped a proposal for a government-run plan to compete with private insurers.
Drugmaker Gains
Drug companies have gained 16 percent this year, as measured by the by S&P Pharmaceutical Index. New York-based Pfizer Inc., the world’s largest drugmaker, rose 5.5 percent.
The Senate on Dec. 15 rejected an amendment to allow imports of cheaper drugs from Canada, a provision opposed by the pharmaceutical industry. Drugmakers earlier agreed to contribute $80 billion over 10 years in return for blocking other profit- endangering proposals.
Pfizer’s trade group, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers Association, spent $19.9 million through September. That’s the third-highest amount behind the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Irving, Texas-based Exxon Mobil Corp., and almost as much as the $20.2 million the group spent in 2008.
Lobbyists
There are 3,300 lobbyists registered to lobby on health care, Senate records show, six for each of the 535 members of the House and Senate. More than 1,400 of those lobbying on health care formerly worked for Congress, the White House or federal agencies, including 55 former lawmakers.
“This is the way the political system works,” said Representative Patrick Kennedy, a Rhode Island Democrat. “People curry favor in all kinds of different ways.”
Many of those lobbyists visited the White House to meet with President Barack Obama and top administration officials, according to visitor logs. Health-care visitors included Karen Ignagni, president of America’s Health Insurance Plans, the trade group for private insurers; Phrma President Billy Tauzin, a former U.S. representative; and Richard Kirsch, national campaign manager of Health Care for America Now, a coalition of labor and advocacy groups such as the AFL-CIO.
To contact the reporters on this story: Jonathan D. Salant in Washington at jsalant@bloomberg.net ; Alex Nussbaum in New York anussbaum1@bloomberg.net .
Analyst Lowers TV Revenue Expectations
BIA/Kelsey VP Mark Fratrik has knocked another billion off his final forecast for 2009 TV station revenues, now put at $15.6 billion. He sees things getting a little better going forward, but only a little.That $15.6 billion forecast for over-the-air revenues is down 22.4% from $2008. That includes $518 million in TV station revenues from the Internet, up 12% from $463 million last year. Back in July the analyst had been looking for a drop of 17.3%.The picture looks a little better for 2010. Fratrik now predicts that TV station revenues will rise 3% to $16.1 billion, including a $130 million increase in Internet revenues.
"While television's numbers are tapering down due to audience erosion from other media delivery options, we continue to see that local TV remains a valuable way to reach relatively larger audiences, critical for mass communications in political campaigns. Additionally, online revenues are expected to grow as stations get more sophisticated in the way they sell to advertisers and integrate their mobile and Internet offerings with their broadcasting operations," Fratrik said as he released his updated forecast.
The Wall Street Journal
Comcast Corp. agreed to pay Chief Operating Officer Steve Burke signing bonuses of $18 million in cash and stock, as part of a five-year contract extension following Comcast's successful conquest of NBC Universal.
Mr. Burke's new contract was disclosed Tuesday in a securities filing.
Mr. Burke will oversee the integration of NBC Universal into Comcast. Comcast agreed this month to buy control of the television and movie company from General Electric Co. for about $13.75 billion in cash and assets. The deal now faces as much as a year of review in Washington.
Michael Angelakis, Comcast's chief financial officer, also signed a contract extension, the filing said. As part of his agreement, extending three years, Mr. Angelakis will receive signing bonuses of $9 million in cash and stock.
Michael Angelakis, Comcast's chief financial officer, also signed a contract extension, the filing said. As part of his agreement, extending three years, Mr. Angelakis will receive signing bonuses of $9 million in cash and stock.
Mr. Burke's signing bonuses comprise $6 million in cash and $12 million in restricted stock, with half of each granted at signing and the remainder when the NBC Universal deal closes, or by June 30 at latest. Mr. Angelakis's signing bonuses are structured similarly. Neither man's new contract increases his base salary or normal cash bonus opportunity.
A Comcast spokeswoman said the company entered the new agreements "with Steve and Michael because they are the best in the business, and their roles in leading the integration of NBC Universal are critically important."
Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page B4 December 23, 2009
Friday, December 18, 2009
Sam Zell Must Face Tribune Employee Pension Plan Suit
By Andrew M. Harrishttp://www.bloomberg.com/
Dec. 18 (Bloomberg) -- Sam Zell, the real estate investor who took the Chicago-based Tribune Co. private in an $8.3 billion stock buyback two years ago, must face an employee lawsuit claiming he knowingly violated federal pension laws.
U.S. District Judge Rebecca Pallmeyer in Chicago rejected Zell’s request to dismiss the suit filed last year. The employees accuse Zell of working with board members and others who allegedly breached their fiduciary duty to the workers.
The judge, in a ruling posted yesterday on the court’s Web site, said that Zell helped engineer the transaction that left Tribune with almost $13 billion in debt even if he wasn’t responsible to the Employee Stock Ownership Plan that privatized the newspaper and broadcasting company.
The company, owner of the Chicago Tribune and Los Angeles Times newspapers, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection last year. The employee stock ownership plan that acquired the shares in the buyback is a federally protected pension plan.
As many as 10,000 workers may have lost money as a result of how the shareholder buyout was executed, said Daniel Feinberg, an attorney for the employees in Oakland, California. While only six workers are named as plaintiffs in the suit, he said he will seek class-action certification to sue on behalf of other employees.
“This deal was misguided from the very beginning,” Feinberg said today in a phone interview. “It was obvious from the start that this deal had a huge risk of insolvency because of the amount of debt.”
Pallmeyer dismissed claims against several Tribune board members, ruling they had delegated their fiduciary duty to Greatbanc Trust Co. The judge said in her ruling that Greatbanc, the trustee for the employee plan, must face the lawsuit.
Terry Holt, a spokeswoman for Zell, declined to comment.
Two lawyers for the Tribune and other defendants, David Bradford and Craig Martin, were said by their office to be travelling today and didn’t immediately respond to e-mail messages seeking comment.
The case is Neil v. Zell, 08cv6833, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois (Chicago).
Sam Zell Sued By Tribune Writers
By Bob Norman
The lawsuit contends that, since the inception of the deal, it appears that Zell and his accessories have planned to enrich themselves, tax-free, by perverting laws passed by Congress intended to benefit rank and file American workers.
The employee-owners of Tribune Company had everything, including their retirement plans, at great risk and little to gain in this deal, while Zell had everything to gain and little at risk.
Among the deal's outrages outlined in the complaint: Zell set up a mechanism to buy 40% of the company – valued at more than $8 billion at the time the ESOP took ownership – for as little as $500 million. It’s a classic grift, played out under the cover of legal technicalities. The real losers in this deal, however, are Americans who rely on news and information collected and disseminated by the respected Tribune news organizations.
In the 1970s and later in the 1980s when Senators Bob Dole (R-Kansas), Russell Long (D-Louisiana) and others in Congress spearheaded efforts to promote ESOPs with generous tax benefits, the intent was to empower employees eager to own and manage the companies where they work.
When it comes to Tribune Company’s ESOP, nothing could be further from the truth.
Employees were never asked if they wanted to own Tribune Company.
They had no opportunity to question the wisdom of saddling a media company with $13 billion in debt at a time when the industry faces serious challenges.
Even though they are nominally the owners, they have no voice on the company’s board and no say in its management.
When Zell hung “You own this place now” banners at Tribune newspaper and TV stations across the country, employees could not know the high price they would pay for this “privilege.”
According to the complaint, Zell de-funded employees retirement packages, raided the employee pension fund for more than $400 million, and eliminated more than a thousand Tribune Co. jobs.
Meanwhile, Zell and his band of publishing rookies were wrecking the company’s marquee properties – including the Los Angeles Times, the Baltimore Sun, and the Chicago Tribune – alienating readers by launching aimless redesigns while dramatically cutting coverage. Seemingly ignorant of journalistic ethics, they, for instance, turned control of the Los Angeles Times Magazine over to the advertising staff, with no indication to the reader that this product is now a “pay-to-play” advertorial. All the while, revenues have continued to decline.
Despite a slowing economy, a precipitous drop in ad revenue in the real estate, classified, and automotive sectors along with the de-monetizing of content put on the web and the spiraling cost of newsprint – the Tribune Company continued to be profitable throughout this decade. Without the staggering debt load from the Zell deal, Tribune's newspapers and TV stations would be solidly profitable today – without eviscerating news gathering operations.
For more information contact:
Attorney for the Plaintiffs Plaintiffs’ spokesmen:
Joseph W. Cotchett, Dan Neil, and Philip L. Gregory
(818) 508-1000
Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy
San Francisco Airport Office Center
840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200
Burlingame, CA 94010
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
AFL-CIO President Trumka Answers Questions From Members
Trumka Answers Your Questions, Lays Out Economic Vision
by Seth Michaels, Dec 16, 2009
In a great live Web discussion yesterday, AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka answered a wide range of questions on the nation’s economic crisis, setting out a vision for short-term job creation and long-term progress toward a fairer economy.
Trumka touched on trade, green jobs, the challenges facing young and older workers, unity in the labor movement and more in an hour-long conversation. More than 6,700 union members and activists took part by submitting and voting on more than 150 questions.
The AFL-CIO has offered a five-point plan to put people to work and turn around the economy. We can and must create jobs now and spur consumer demand, Trumka said in explaining the plan.
Our current economic crisis is just a symptom of larger long-term weakness and inequality in our economy, Trumka said, and good jobs are the solution:
Remember, wages have been stagnant for years, so people had to start borrowing…we got to the point where people just couldn’t borrow any more and the economy just sort of collapsed at that point…we reached the limit of that. Debt can’t continue to be the engine that fuels the economy.
When we talk about stimulating or rebuilding the economy, Trumka asks, we need to ask: “To what end?”
If we’re just rebuilding the old broken economy—with an under-regulated financial sector taking precedence over the real economy—then we haven’t really gotten anywhere. We need an economy where productivity is rewarded and prosperity is fairly shared.
In particular, Trumka says that to ensure the economy is really working in the long term, we need to give workers the ability to bargain for a fair share. The freedom to bargain means we won’t just create jobs, we’ll create good jobs. That means passing the Employee Free Choice Act and giving workers the freedom to form a union—and it means training more organizers to help workers across the country form a union and get a fair contract. That will give people the wages and the economic security they need to support the economy, provide for their families and get engaged in their communities.
You can watch more of this great conversation here.
More questions answered by AFL-CIO President Trumka here at:
http://www.youtube.com/user/AFLCIONow#p/u
Monday, December 14, 2009
American cable Asso. Attacks TV LMAs
The American Cable Association is calling for an FCC investigation into local marketing agreements (LMAs) between television stations, particularly when the operating partner in such an agreement handles MVPD retransmission consent negotiations for all of the stations."ACA believes the FCC should now determine whether LMAs are skirting national policy intended to promote local broadcast competition," ACA President and CEO Matthew M. Polka said. "LMAs set the price for retransmission consent for one broadcaster and its direct horizontal competitor, leading to higher retransmission consent costs for consumers."
ACA says that the rules generally prohibit owning two or more television stations in a market to protect consumers and advertisers from anticompetitive behavior, and that LMAs are used to get around the prohibition.
"We hope the FCC takes this opportunity to fix a broken retransmission consent process that permits a broadcaster like Sinclair to pull its signals from cable systems while a retransmission consent grievance is being reviewed by the FCC, inflicting harm on consumers who expect uninterrupted access to local news, weather and time-sensitive information such as school closings, traffic delays and missing-child alerts," Polka said.
Polka concluded, "ACA has long advocated for retransmission consent reform because of the vulnerability of ACA members and their customers in retransmission consent negotiations due to a lack of market power. As the FCC noted when News Corp. took effective control of DirecTV, small and medium-sized cable operators are particularly vulnerable to the withdrawal of `must have' programming."
RBR-TVBR
http://www.rbr.com/tv-cable/index.1.html
Rainbow pushes anti-Sinclair proceedings
The Rainbow PUSH coalition has been on Sinclair Broadcast Group’s case since 1998, saying that its operation of stations licensed to other companies constituted “the largest broadcast ownership fraud scheme in history.”
Now it is going to bat for cable operator Mediacom in its retrans battle with Sinclair.David Honig put on his attorney’s hat to represent Rainbow in its latest filing, apart from his leadership role with the Minority Media and Telecommunications Act.
Honig noted that numerous challenges to Sinclair license renewals, and to relationships with stations in certain markets creating de facto duopolies, have gone unaddressed by the FCC.
He cited evidence the Rainbow believes warrants a full FCC investigation into Sinclair’s fitness to be a licensee.Rainbow contends that Sinclair has de facto control over Cunningham Broadcasting Stations, and that it has “brazenly violated basic broadcast disclosure requirements and federal campaign report spending rules” in a variety of ways.
And that’s where Mediacom comes in: “Mediacom’s recent retransmission complaint against Sinclair again raises the issues of Sinclair’s character, fair dealing, and questionable control over broadcast television stations. As Mediacom’s complaint illustrates, Sinclair has refused to engage in good faith negotiations and has made anticompetitive demands that violate the Commission’s policies favoring competition.
Specifically, Sinclair has used its bottleneck control over multiple stations in a market as a bargaining chip.”Mediacom notes that in many markets, Sinclair controls two of the top four stations, a combination that would have been prohibited had Michael Powell’s relaxation of television duopoly rules survived the Prometheus case after Powell’s 2003 dereg attempt.
A pdf file of the document can be read at .http://www.rbr.com/files.php?force&file=pdfs/rainbowsinc.pdf
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Ask AFL-CIO President Trumka About the Jobs Crisis
Hi, All:Wanted to let you know that today we are launching a new online event focusing on jobs, with AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka. Using online moderation tools, union leaders and working familyactivists across the country can submit questions for President Trumka about the jobs crisis and vote on questions already submitted.
President Trumka will answer the top-rated questions in a live online video discussion on Tuesday, Dec. 15, at 4 p.m. EST.
Please save that date.Visit http://www.aflcio.org/open to submit a question and vote on the questions.
* Sign in here to participate if you have a Google account: http://bit.ly/7uk5gZ
* If you don’t have a Google account, create one here: http://bit.ly/7Y3LfN
* More on the AFL-CIO’s five-point jobs plan here: http://www.aflcio.org/createjobs.
Please spread the word!
Cheers,
Tula Connell
AFL-CIO Managing Editor
815 16th St.,
N.W.Washington, DC 20006
http://www.aflcio.org/
Follow the AFL-CIO atFacebook: www.facebook.com/AFL-CIO/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/AFLCIO
Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/AFLCIONow
__________________________
From Bob Daraio:
I sent in the following four questions for the "Ask President Trumka About the Jobs Crisis" program:
1) "Will you support legislation to curb out-sourcing by requiring subcontractors of work formerly performed by employees of businesses with collective bargaining agreements to have a union contract?"
2) "Will you support legislation that requires employers with union contracts to bring their collective bargaining agreement with them when they move their facility to any other city or State?"
3) "Will you support an AFL-CIO position that no collective bargaining agreement should continue to have a "No strike clause" or at least require contract language requiring all union members to honor any and all sanctioned picket lines?"
4) " Will you fight for legislation to eliminate the "While you can't be fired for striking, you can be permanently replaced" rule?
I'd be interested in Brother Trumka's position on these questions. What do you think?
Thank you to the AFL-CIO for providing the opportunity for the rank and file to ask our AFL-CIO leadership questions and for allowing our input into policy decisions at the highest levels in organized labor. Communication will make us stronger.
Fraternally,
Bob D
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Stations Shift to Talent-Run Teleprompting
By Hillary Atkin
http://www.tvweek.com
Stations following the credo of doing more with less are now moving toward talent-run teleprompters as a cost-cutting measure, either reassigning prompter operators to other news production tasks or cutting them completely.
As with any change or cutback in the news business, the move has been met in some quarters with resistance and controversy — especially in major markets, where news anchors have historically had large teams of production professionals taking care of the technical aspects of the newscasts.
As one unidentified newsroom employee put it in a recent Washington Post article about local Fox station WTTG-TV implementing anchor-run prompters: “It’s kind of like a literal one-man band — singing, banging a drum, crashing cymbals, playing a trumpet and strumming a guitar ... except we’re not playing show tunes here.”
Yet for some professionals in smaller markets who are used to more meager resources, the adjustment has been easy.
Loriana Hernandez, news anchor at Austin, Texas, Fox affiliate KTBC-TV, has found having the added chore of running her own teleprompter to be her preference. She’d had previous experience doing it when she worked at CNN and CNN en Espanol, but this time around it’s different.
Fernandez, co-anchor of the Fox O&O station’s 5 p.m. and 9 p.m. newscasts with Mike Warren, used to work with a hand-controlled device that she said she found restrictive. Now she and Warren — and the station’s other on-air talent — can operate the prompter from eight separate foot-pedal locations in the news studio.
Teleprompters — devices that project upwardly scrolling copy in front of a camera lens so that talent can read it without losing eye contact with the viewer — were invented in the mid-1950s and have been a crucial part of the television landscape ever since.
Fox stations have led the way toward self-prompting. Company executives say the switchover has gone smoothly not only in Austin, but at WOFL-TV in Orlando, Fla., where anchors have been scrolling their own prompters for several months now. At its affiliates in Tampa and Memphis, WTVT-TV and WHBQ-TV, one newscast at each station is currently using anchor-driven prompters.
Duffy Dyer, general manager of WTTG, the Washington Fox station from the Post article, said he is confident of the outcome, that the quality of the newscasts will not be affected, and that viewers won’t notice any change. “The feedback is very positive,” he said. “We have been meeting with anchors and reporters. I’d say that, to a person, everyone is looking at this as a positive move. Some are looking forward to learning a new skill and becoming more valuable to the company, and there are a fair amount of people who have done it in markets like Utica and Eureka.”
In the lead-up to the switchover, Dyer said station management is being very patient and making sure that all talent is comfortable with the process. “We’ve made it clear that we have a great news product because of their and management’s efforts, and we won’t do anything to put that at risk,” he said.
Previously, a mix of people from production assistants to the tape library manager was operating the teleprompter, and Dyer said none of them would be laid off.
WTTG was scheduled to install the new prompters in mid-November, and then train about 12 on-air talent who will be using them. The plan was to begin anchor-controlled teleprompting on the weekend shows before rolling it out on the weekdays.
According to those who have already taken the plunge, the actual training is more a matter of becoming at ease than any sort of steep learning curve. “We got together with the morning and evening teams, got the system in place, ran rehearsals and let them get acclimated with how the functions worked,” said Jeff Zeller, vice president and news director of Fox O&O WOFL in Orlando. “We did rehearsals for about a week and then let them at it.”
KTBC’s Hernandez said it was a breeze. “There’s nothing to train,” she said. “You run your own pedal, and are in charge of your pacing and speed. If there is a situation where I need to ad lib, I do. I didn’t feel any training was necessary,” Hernandez said, and gave this advice, “I would say, ‘Plug it in, let them play with it for 10 minutes and let them go.’ ”
What happens when the newscast producer makes fast page kills or floats a story at the last second, as regularly occurs in a fast-paced broadcast? The anchors do not have to deal with pulling pages from the prompter at the last moment. The floor director or someone in the control booth makes those adjustments as the anchor continues reading the copy.
Mistakes can happen, whether there’s a separate operator or when the prompter is anchor-run. “In a typical newscast it’s forced us all to communicate better. I can tell you there’s been no disasters,” said Hernandez. “We have our little system. It’s like a dance.”
“Honestly, it’s been a very smooth transition,” Zeller said. “In practice runs, we made sure they’re not running it too fast. As far as on-air, in the end, it’s a teleprompter, being operated by someone differently than it was before.”
The original prompter manufacturer, which spelled its name TelePrompTer, no longer exists, but there are at least a half-dozen vendors that manufacture prompting products.
AutoScript Inc. is one of the industry leaders, with competitors that include QTV, Telescript and Listec. Typical software/hardware packages run from $1,000 to $7,000, in addition to the cost of outfitting each camera with a prompter, which runs between $2,000 and $8,000.
For most talent running their own prompter, the most desired setup is the foot pedal out of camera view. But there are also wireless hand controllers, called “rats,” with forward and backward buttons.
Seeing a trend over the last year or two of talent doing their own prompting, especially in smaller markets, AutoScript developed a new product. “It’s called Magno Foot Control with Deskpad,” said Gordon Tubbs, vice president of AutoScript. “It uses magnetic encoder technology and sits under the desk. If talent is standing, it’s out of shot on the floor. The farther they push, the faster it moves, like a gas pedal. That is probably the most common way of talent prompting themselves. That’s typically what they’re buying.”
At WTTG, the new system will be a combination of foot pedals and wireless hand devices.
“The system we’re going to be using gives talent the ability to advance to the next story. That’s the kind of feature that will make it virtually invisible to the viewer,” said Dyer. “Individuals will have preferences for foot pedals or wireless hand devices. Situations will call for one over the other. We don’t want to push a square peg in a round hole, and will make sure people can make decisions to do it the best way through a combination of devices in various positions.”
For Hernandez, who said she likes to wear 4-inch heels, her most comfortable position is kicking her shoes off before scrolling away on the prompter foot pedal.
http://www.tvweek.com
Stations following the credo of doing more with less are now moving toward talent-run teleprompters as a cost-cutting measure, either reassigning prompter operators to other news production tasks or cutting them completely.
As with any change or cutback in the news business, the move has been met in some quarters with resistance and controversy — especially in major markets, where news anchors have historically had large teams of production professionals taking care of the technical aspects of the newscasts.
As one unidentified newsroom employee put it in a recent Washington Post article about local Fox station WTTG-TV implementing anchor-run prompters: “It’s kind of like a literal one-man band — singing, banging a drum, crashing cymbals, playing a trumpet and strumming a guitar ... except we’re not playing show tunes here.”
Yet for some professionals in smaller markets who are used to more meager resources, the adjustment has been easy.
Loriana Hernandez, news anchor at Austin, Texas, Fox affiliate KTBC-TV, has found having the added chore of running her own teleprompter to be her preference. She’d had previous experience doing it when she worked at CNN and CNN en Espanol, but this time around it’s different.
Fernandez, co-anchor of the Fox O&O station’s 5 p.m. and 9 p.m. newscasts with Mike Warren, used to work with a hand-controlled device that she said she found restrictive. Now she and Warren — and the station’s other on-air talent — can operate the prompter from eight separate foot-pedal locations in the news studio.
Teleprompters — devices that project upwardly scrolling copy in front of a camera lens so that talent can read it without losing eye contact with the viewer — were invented in the mid-1950s and have been a crucial part of the television landscape ever since.
Fox stations have led the way toward self-prompting. Company executives say the switchover has gone smoothly not only in Austin, but at WOFL-TV in Orlando, Fla., where anchors have been scrolling their own prompters for several months now. At its affiliates in Tampa and Memphis, WTVT-TV and WHBQ-TV, one newscast at each station is currently using anchor-driven prompters.
Duffy Dyer, general manager of WTTG, the Washington Fox station from the Post article, said he is confident of the outcome, that the quality of the newscasts will not be affected, and that viewers won’t notice any change. “The feedback is very positive,” he said. “We have been meeting with anchors and reporters. I’d say that, to a person, everyone is looking at this as a positive move. Some are looking forward to learning a new skill and becoming more valuable to the company, and there are a fair amount of people who have done it in markets like Utica and Eureka.”
In the lead-up to the switchover, Dyer said station management is being very patient and making sure that all talent is comfortable with the process. “We’ve made it clear that we have a great news product because of their and management’s efforts, and we won’t do anything to put that at risk,” he said.
Previously, a mix of people from production assistants to the tape library manager was operating the teleprompter, and Dyer said none of them would be laid off.
WTTG was scheduled to install the new prompters in mid-November, and then train about 12 on-air talent who will be using them. The plan was to begin anchor-controlled teleprompting on the weekend shows before rolling it out on the weekdays.
According to those who have already taken the plunge, the actual training is more a matter of becoming at ease than any sort of steep learning curve. “We got together with the morning and evening teams, got the system in place, ran rehearsals and let them get acclimated with how the functions worked,” said Jeff Zeller, vice president and news director of Fox O&O WOFL in Orlando. “We did rehearsals for about a week and then let them at it.”
KTBC’s Hernandez said it was a breeze. “There’s nothing to train,” she said. “You run your own pedal, and are in charge of your pacing and speed. If there is a situation where I need to ad lib, I do. I didn’t feel any training was necessary,” Hernandez said, and gave this advice, “I would say, ‘Plug it in, let them play with it for 10 minutes and let them go.’ ”
What happens when the newscast producer makes fast page kills or floats a story at the last second, as regularly occurs in a fast-paced broadcast? The anchors do not have to deal with pulling pages from the prompter at the last moment. The floor director or someone in the control booth makes those adjustments as the anchor continues reading the copy.
Mistakes can happen, whether there’s a separate operator or when the prompter is anchor-run. “In a typical newscast it’s forced us all to communicate better. I can tell you there’s been no disasters,” said Hernandez. “We have our little system. It’s like a dance.”
“Honestly, it’s been a very smooth transition,” Zeller said. “In practice runs, we made sure they’re not running it too fast. As far as on-air, in the end, it’s a teleprompter, being operated by someone differently than it was before.”
The original prompter manufacturer, which spelled its name TelePrompTer, no longer exists, but there are at least a half-dozen vendors that manufacture prompting products.
AutoScript Inc. is one of the industry leaders, with competitors that include QTV, Telescript and Listec. Typical software/hardware packages run from $1,000 to $7,000, in addition to the cost of outfitting each camera with a prompter, which runs between $2,000 and $8,000.
For most talent running their own prompter, the most desired setup is the foot pedal out of camera view. But there are also wireless hand controllers, called “rats,” with forward and backward buttons.
Seeing a trend over the last year or two of talent doing their own prompting, especially in smaller markets, AutoScript developed a new product. “It’s called Magno Foot Control with Deskpad,” said Gordon Tubbs, vice president of AutoScript. “It uses magnetic encoder technology and sits under the desk. If talent is standing, it’s out of shot on the floor. The farther they push, the faster it moves, like a gas pedal. That is probably the most common way of talent prompting themselves. That’s typically what they’re buying.”
At WTTG, the new system will be a combination of foot pedals and wireless hand devices.
“The system we’re going to be using gives talent the ability to advance to the next story. That’s the kind of feature that will make it virtually invisible to the viewer,” said Dyer. “Individuals will have preferences for foot pedals or wireless hand devices. Situations will call for one over the other. We don’t want to push a square peg in a round hole, and will make sure people can make decisions to do it the best way through a combination of devices in various positions.”
For Hernandez, who said she likes to wear 4-inch heels, her most comfortable position is kicking her shoes off before scrolling away on the prompter foot pedal.
Saturday, December 5, 2009
Democrats Take Dim View Of Comcast/NBC
Two Democratic members of the House of Representatives and a Democratic FCC Commissioner with a history of anti-consolidation activism have weighed in on Comcast’s plans to acquire a controlling stake in NBCU.The nicest assessment of the deal was that it is questionable; another called it devastating.
Ed Markey (D-MA), who has long had a leadership role in communications matters on the Hill, was the one who finds the deal questionable. He said, “This proposed deal raises significant questions about consumer choice and competition, innovation and investment in the media marketplace that merit close scrutiny by Congress, the FCC and the Justice Department. While the companies have determined that this merger advances their business interests, it is essential that the public interest is served. As the author of the Internet Freedom Preservation Act to ensure network neutrality along with Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman and Congresswoman Anna Eshoo, I want to ensure that the combination of a major network operator and a large content owner does not open the door to discrimination on the Internet to the detriment of users. I look forward to working with my colleagues and the Administration on this important matter as the process moves forward.”
Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), who has taken a leadership role in pushing back against media consolidation, had a much more negative reaction -- in fact, it was completely negative.
He said, “Comcast's acquisition of NBC Universal would have a devastating impact on the already decreasing ability of the American people to receive unfiltered access to news, information, and entertainment programming from a wide array of sources."
"Given that we've already seen Comcast try to censor the Internet when it sought to undermine network neutrality several years ago, the American people should have no faith that Comcast would allow them to have access to a wide array of television programming…A diverse media system is critical to a properly functioning democracy. Further consolidation would shortchange the wide array of ideas and content needed to keep the American people informed about their elected officials. This acquisition must be stopped.”
FCC Commissioner Michael Copps, a longtime foe of consolidation, will have an opportunity to review the transaction. He said, “Some may have thought the era of media consolidation—fewer huge companies controlling more of the nation’s media assets—was behind us. This transaction proves those analysts wrong. The push to combine content and distribution continues and, as the economy recovers, we will see more proposed media industry combinations.”
Copps continued, “While I look at each proposed transaction on its individual merits, my long-tanding skepticism about the harms imposed by so few controlling so much persists.
And this particular transaction raises a multitude of important questions:
What is its impact on the prices consumers will pay?
Would the combination mean more newsrooms (but perhaps fewer reporters) controlled by one entity?
How would the transaction affect minorities and diversity on the airwaves?
Would this merger lead to fewer voices on both traditional and new media?
Does the nature of the transaction make even more urgent the need for FCC network neutrality rules?
What about the future of competition in the several markets these companies serve?
The list of questions and consequences goes on. Clearly this proposal requires close and comprehensive Commission review.
The lodestar for this review must be the public interest.”He concluded, “I look forward to broad stakeholder reaction to today’s announcement—and, indeed, every citizen has a stake here. I am anxious to hear more from the parties to the deal about how they believe the proposed transaction, as presently constructed, advances the public interest. It will come as no news to them that they face a very steep climb with me.”
RBR-TVBR
Friday, December 4, 2009
Merger plans for Comcast And NBC Ignite Battle Over Television Access
By Cecilia Kang
Washington Post Staff WriterComcast, the nation's biggest cable and broadband Internet company, on Thursday announced plans to take over NBC Universal, creating a new kind of media colossus that would not only produce some of America's most popular entertainment but also control viewers' access to it.
The roughly $30 billion deal set off immediate reaction from consumer groups and lawmakers in Washington, heralding an epic regulatory battle over concentrating so much power in one company. Almost one in four cable subscribers in the U.S. is a Comcast customer. NBC Universal owns cable networks such as Telemundo, MSNBC and Bravo, TV shows such as Jay Leno's, regional stations such as Washington's WRC (Channel 4), and Universal movie studios.
Sens. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), chairman of the Commerce Committee, and Herb Kohl (D-Wis.), chairman of the Judiciary antitrust subcommittee, called for hearings to review the deal's impact on television competition and consumers. Michael J. Copps, a Democratic member of the Federal Communications Commission, said that the merger faces a "very steep climb with me" and that it raises many doubts over whether it would be in the public's interest.
Analysts said the deal would face a lengthy regulatory review -- from one year to 18 months -- but would probably be passed with significant conditions. A great part of the debate for federal regulators will be how the merger would impact the future of television programming, which will be viewed online on mobile devices and computers as well as on the box in American living rooms.
"My long-standing skepticism about the harms imposed by so few controlling so much persists," said Copps, a staunch advocate of media-ownership rules that prevent consolidation between newspapers and broadcasters in the same market.
Critics worry that the consolidation of the two big companies could drive up cable TV bills and make some content off limits to anyone who doesn't subscribe to Comcast's services. The Philadelphia company has said it wants to keep NBC and Universal entertainment available to the widest possible audience. It did not address the cost issue on Thursday.
The deal also must overcome the poor track record of previous mergers between media giants, most notably the disastrous pairing of AOL and Time Warner.In a conference call, Comcast chief executive Brian Roberts touted the synergies of the merger, saying the acquisition would further his family's vision of developing the company into an entertainment powerhouse from its humble beginning as a single cable system operator in rural Mississippi. Roberts said he thought the deal was "approvable" by regulators.
"This is pro-consumer and is going to accelerate what I believe consumers want, which is to access all different types of content on different platforms at different times," he said.
Appeasing regulators
Comcast made several commitments to fair play in the television market to appease regulators. The company said it would keep NBC's local television stations and expand programming to diversify its offerings. It said it would abide by program access rules that require it to share shows and channels with competitors.
The FCC will review the deal to see whether it benefits the public. Antitrust watchdogs at the Justice Department or Federal Trade Commission will scrutinize whether it would harm competition in the market.
Under the deal, which has been in the works for months, Comcast would pay $6.5 billion in cash upfront and contribute $7.25 billion in cable assets to acquire a 51 percent stake in NBC Universal from its current owner, General Electric, which would retain a 49 percent stake. Comcast would control the joint venture's day-to-day operations. GE would take $9.1 billion in debt to finance the deal. In all, the joint venture would control more than one out of every five television-viewing hours.
While NBC Universal is still highly profitable, some of its major holdings, particularly NBC and the Universal studio, are struggling. But NBC still has some significant assets, such as a contract with the NFL to broadcast games on Sunday nights and the rights to the 2010 Winter Olympics in Vancouver, B.C., and the 2012 Summer Games in London. It also has a prestigious news division that produces the top-rated morning show "Today" and gives its parent company stature in Washington via such programs as "NBC Nightly News With Brian Williams" and "Meet the Press." In addition, WRC has been the most popular local news station in Washington for more than a decade.
Comcast will contribute its cable-network group to the marriage, including such channels as E! Entertainment Television, Style Network, Versus, Golf Channel, Major League Baseball channel and 10 regional sports networks. Among the latter is Comcast Sports Network in Washington, which carries the Capitals, Wizards and University of Maryland basketball and football games locally.
Impact on online video
Public interest groups are particularly concerned about the deal's impact on the nascent but growing market for online video, where new operators such as Hulu, YouTube and Netflix are changing the media landscape with free or low-priced products.
Analysts say the merger will be a test for how regulators will deal with the Internet video market, which doesn't fall directly under the FCC's jurisdiction. But the agency is exploring competition in online video, and it could use the merger to implement conditions that would set guidelines for the burgeoning market.
"The transaction gives the FCC a vehicle to explore policy issues relating to Internet video in ways that might have negative implications for Comcast as well as other cable operators and satellite TV providers," said Paul Gallant, an analyst at Concept Capital.
The FCC imposed conditions on AT&T's merger with Bell South in 2005 that kept the company from controlling customers' Internet access, and consumer groups said they would seek similar rules in exchange for approval of the Comcast deal.
Ben Scott, head of policy for the public interest group Free Press, said such conditions would keep Comcast from potentially charging more for Disney content by metering Internet video consumption of those shows but not for NBC shows.
"A broadband provider has a financial incentive to prioritize that content over someone else," Scott said.
David Cohen, an executive vice president for Comcast, said in an interview that such concerns are being addressed in the FCC's net neutrality proceeding and shouldn't apply specifically to the merger. And he said that Comcast doesn't give better services or prices for its own content today.
"There is no incentive in this transaction for us to favor our content," Cohen said.
Competitors, meanwhile, said they are warily watching the deal.
Herndon-based RCN said Comcast doesn't abide by program-access rules and fears that with more content in its grasp, the company could hurt smaller cable competitors.
"Existing program access rules and prior merger conditions have been largely ineffective in controlling the discriminatory impact of Comcast's existing integration of content and distribution and would be woefully inadequate to mitigate the potential for anti-competitive actions by a combined Comcast-NBC entity," said Richard Ramlall, senior vice president of strategic and external affairs.
Watchdogs lining up to battle Comcast-NBCU deal
Critics are lining up to try to kill the latest move toward media consolidation.
Free Press and the Consumer Federation of America were quick out of the box with a new analysis showing why the organizations believe the deal poses a major threat to video competition that would seriously harm the public interest."The pundits who are predicting this merger will be a cakewalk haven’t done a careful analysis of the damage it will do to the competitive fabric of the video marketplace. This merger’s potential to foreclose competition and stifle innovation is significant and real," said Mark Cooper, research director for the Consumer Federation of America.
The report claims that:
-- A Comcast-NBC merger would hurt competition in traditional video markets. A merger between the nation’s No. 1 cable operator and a major television network threatens competitive rivalry and diversity in the video marketplace. The new entity could leverage its control over content to charge more to its rivals
— costs that will ultimately be paid by consumers.
-- A Comcast-NBC merger would hurt competition in the emerging online video market. Comcast is the largest residential broadband Internet service provider; NBC produces top-notch content and has a substantial interest in the online video provider Hulu. A merged company would have a powerful motive to starve competing online video sources by denying them access to vital content.
-- A Comcast-NBC merger would trigger more media consolidation. Approval of this deal will undoubtedly trigger a merger wave, as the remaining players in both the distribution and content markets seek to muscle-up to match this new behemoth.
As a result, competition from new entrants will be limited, consumer choice will be restricted, and prices will rise."The Obama administration has made a commitment to reinvigorating the nation’s antitrust laws," said Corie Wright, policy counsel of Free Press. "They can’t ignore the severe threat this merger poses and must take the necessary measures to prevent harm to competition and consumers. The correct response to this merger is to just say no."
Even before the deal was official, the Seattle Times had published an editorial calling for regulators to say no. The newspaper was quick with a second editorial stating that not only should Comcast not own NBC Universal, but that GE shouldn’t either. “NBC Universal should be independent,” the newspaper declared. “The consolidation in media is dangerous — to the economic interests of the public and to democracy itself. The trend toward media giantism should be stopped, and the place to begin is this proposed deal,” the Seattle Times editorial concluded.
“This mega-merger clearly spotlights the dangers of media consolidation in the Internet Age,” declared the Communications Workers of America (CWA).“Comcast is not only the nation’s largest cable company, with 24 million customers, but it has 15 million Internet users and controls most must-have regional sports programming. If it takes on NBC Universal, it adds a major television network, 27 local televisions, cable channels including CNBC, MSNBC, Telemundo, Bravo, USA Network and more, plus Hulu, a growing stop especially for households under age 35,” the union noted.
“This vertical integration of two very different companies – one controlling distribution and another controlling content – would give the merged company leverage over both in broadcast and network television and the market power to control pricing of content on the Internet. It clearly would threaten competition in the distribution of content and programming,” the CWA said.
The union is also worried about what might happen to its members at NBCU under Comcast ownership. “Comcast also has a long history of violating workers’ rights, firing workers who want union representation, refusing to bargain fairly for contracts, running aggressive campaigns to decertify unions and much more,” the union said. CWA said it represents about 2,000 Comcast workers and about 2,500 NBC Universal broadcast technicians and other workers.
The American Cable Association (ACA) issued a statement urging regulators to scrutinize the proposed Comcast-NBC Universal transaction “and take appropriate action, whether through conditions or forced divestiture, to prevent the new programming giant from using its enhanced market power to raise prices and limit choices for consumers of small and medium-sized cable and broadband operators.”
ACA represents small cable system operators, while Comcast is the giant of the industry. ACA has already been fighting for government to curtail retransmission consent payments to TV stations – and worries that Comcast-NBCU will up the ante.
"Without broad government intervention, regulators in Washington, DC will see Comcast-NBCU wield its unprecedented power to drive up artificially the cost of its programming, particularly for its newly acquired local broadcast TV stations and its 'must-have' national and regional cable networks that air live sporting events. Without restrictions, the new media conglomerate will also leverage its enhanced market power to force other pay-television providers to distribute all of its combined Comcast-NBCU programming on basic tiers, regardless of consumer interest in paying for this content," said ACA President and CEO Matthew Polka.
How Comcast plans to make its case in DC
Winning regulatory approval for cable giant Comcast to acquire a majority stake in NBC Universal won’t be easy. Opponents are coming out of the woodwork. But that was anticipated and Comcast has already spelled out how it plans to sell the proposal to the FCC, antitrust regulators and Congress.Among the documents that Comcast and General Electric posted for investors and reporters dealing with the NBCU transaction was a memo from Comcast Executive Vice President David L. Cohen, whose duties include government relations.
In it, he spelled out the points that Comcast will make in trying to persuade the government that the deal to have Comcast acquire a 51% stake in NBCU from GE should be approved.“While we believe that this transaction is, and will be determined to be, pro-competitive, proconsumer, and strongly in the public interest, we recognize that competitive concerns will be raised about the combination of such significant multiplatform assets in a single company,” he said, in what may be quite an understatement. “Therefore, we also intend to make a number of affirmative voluntary commitments in our applications for approval that we believe will effectively address any such concerns.”
Cohen spelled out how Comcast-NBCU will enhance its public interest commitments, saying the combined company will build on the “strengths and histories of Comcast and NBCU in children's programming, diversity, and local programming, and reinforcing the combined companies' commitment to broadcasting, the companies make the following commitments:
1. NBC has a proud history in broadcasting with both NBC and Telemundo. Notwithstanding the turbulence in the current media marketplace and the ongoing threats to the business model of a national broadcast network, the combined company remains committed to continuing to provide free over-the-air television through its 0&0 stations and through local broadcast affiliates across the nation. As we negotiate and renew agreements with our broadcast affiliates, we will continue our cooperative dialogue with our affiliates toward a business model to sustain free over-the-air service that can be workable in the evolving economic and technological environment.
2. The NBC owned-and-operated broadcast stations ("0&OS ") have a demonstrated record of quality local programming in major markets around the country. Comcast also has demonstrated its commitment to local programming, including sports and public affairs, and in providing support for public, educational, and government (PEG) access programming. We want to use the combined resources of NBC and Comcast to strengthen localism:
a. We intend to preserve and enrich the output of local news, local public affairs, and other public interest programming on NBC 0&0 stations. Through the use of Comcasts On Demand and On Demand Online platforms, time slots on cable channels, and use of certain windows on the 0&0 schedules, we believe we can expand the availability of all types of local and public interest programming.
b. With respect to PEG channels, we will not migrate PEG channels to digital delivery on any Comcast cable system until the system has converted to all-digital distribution (Ie., until all analog channels have been eliminated), or until a community otherwise agrees to digital PEG channels, whichever comes first.
c. To enhance localism and strengthen educational and governmental access programming, we will also develop a platform to host PEG content On Demand and On Demand Online within three years of closing.
3. Since NBCU was acquired by GE in 1986, the owners have abided by a policy (summarized in a filing with the FCC) of ensuring that the content of NBC's news and public affairs programming would not be influenced by the non-media interests of General Electric.
a. The combined company will continue these policies with respect to the news programming organizations of all NBCU networks and stations, and will extend these policies to the potential influence of each of the owners.
b. To ensure such independence, the combined companies will continue in effect the position and authority of the NBC News ombudsman to address any issues that may arise.
4. Comcast and NBCU have strong track records in children's programming and children's issues. The combined company will make an expanded commitment to meeting the viewing needs of children, and the needs of parents to better control their family's viewing.
a. We will use Comcast’s On Demand and On Demand Online platforms and a portion of the NBC O&Os' digital broadcast spectrum to speak to kids. We intend to develop additional opportunities to feature children's content on all available platforms.
b. We reaffirm our commitment to provide clear and understandable on-screen TV Ratings information for all covered programming across all networks (broadcast and cable) of the combined company, and to apply the cable industry's best practice standards for providing on-screen ratings information in terms of size, frequency, and duration.
c. In an effort to constantly improve the tools and information available for parents, Comcast will expand its growing partnership with Common Sense Media ("CSM") a highly respected organization offering enhanced information to help guide family viewing decisions. Comcast will work to creatively incorporate CSM information in its emerging On Demand and On Demand Online platforms and other advanced platforms, and will look for more opportunities for CSM to work with NBCU.
5. Comcast and NBCU have been major forces in bringing diverse programming to American television audiences. With the new company's interests in Telemundo and Mun2, and with Comcast’s founding role in TVOne and its extensive offerings of channels meeting the needs of diverse viewers, we will be second to none in providing and promoting diverse programming. But we want to do even more:
a. We intend to expand the availability of over-the-air programming to the Hispanic community utilizing a portion of the digital broadcast spectrum of the Telemundo O&O's (as well as offering it to Telemundo affiliates) to enhance the current programming of Tel em undo and Mun2.
b. We will use Comcast’s On Demand and On Demand Online platforms to feature Telemundo programming.
c. We intend to continue expanding the availability of Mun2 on the Comcast cable, On Demand, and On Demand Online platforms.
The memo makes several other points, as well, designed to hit the hot buttons of regulators and lawmakers. Some of them address the position that Comcast will be in as both a program provider and the nation’s largest cable MSO.
One of those is a voluntary commitment to extend the FCC’s program access rules pertaining to cable/satellite networks to negotiations with other cable companies for retransmission rights to the NBC and Telemundo O&O stations.
RBR-TVBR observation: What stands out is that rather than wanting to exit the broadcasting side of the business, as many expected Comcast to do at NBCU, the NBC/Telemundo O&O station groups are being used as a major selling point for the deal.
“Localism” is a hot issue at the FCC and Comcast is emphasizing how the NBCU television will play a big role in having the merged company promote local programming and public service.
Vote For Sam Zell As "Jobs For Justice" "Scrooge Of The Year".
Each year, national Jobs with Justice gives an “award” to the greediest, most cold-hearted company or person of the year.Past winners of this dubious honor include: Wal-Mart, George W. Bush, and Goodyear Tire & Rubber. Jobs with Justice National is now accepting nominations for the 2009 “Scrooge of the Year” contest. We are collecting nominations this week and will start the election on December 7th.
Vote For Sam Zell
As The"Jobs For Justice"
2009 "Scrooge Of The Year".
Sam Zell purchased and took the Tribune Company private in a heavily leveraged transaction for $8.2 billion that saddled the Tribune Co. with $13 billion in debt just as the bottom fell out of the advertising market.
Tribune Co. filed for Chapter 11 protection last December because it was struggling to manage the debt from the deal that made the Company a Sub-chapter S corporation owned by the employees to avoid taxes. The employee "owners" did not have a seat on the board of directors, or any say in the running of the company, now in bankruptcy and ESOP shares valued at $ 0, zero, nadda.
To add insult to injury, after massive nationwide layoffs, wage freezes, and benefit cuts at Tribune's newspapers and TV stations in 2009, Sam asked the bankruptcy court to approve $70 million dollars in executive bonuses. Sam's Merry Christmas to his team of bosses is a big Bah Humbug to the rest of his employees.
VOTE FOR SAM ZELL AS THE "JOBS FOR JUSTICE" 2009 "SCROOGE OF THE YEAR"
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Washington Reacts To Comcast/NBC Merger
The two Commerce Committee chairs have weighed in on the proposed acquisition of a controlling interest in NBC Universal by Comcast Corporation, and guess what: they are leery of the deal.The FCC also issued a tersely-worded statement.
First the FCC: Speaking on behalf of Chairman Julius Genachowski, Jen Howard said, “The FCC will carefully examine the proposed merger and will be thorough, fair, and fact-based in its review.”
House Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA) is concerned about the deal and is rounding up his key subcommittee chair Rick Boucher (D-VA) to be a major part of the scrutinizing posse. He said, “The proposed Comcast-NBC Universal joint venture agreement has the potential to reshape the media marketplace. This proposal raises questions regarding diversity, competition, and the future of the production and distribution of video content across broadcasting, cable, online, and mobile platforms. It is imperative that the FCC, the Justice Department, and the FTC rigorously assess whether this transaction is in the public interest. I will work with Rep. Rick Boucher, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet, to schedule hearings on this matter at the earliest practicable date."
Senate Commerce Chairman Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) is starting out with a dim view of the transaction, saying, “I have some serious questions about the deal announced for Comcast to assume control of NBC Universal. A joint venture of this magnitude would benefit from regulatory oversight. When major media companies swell to control both content and distribution, we need to make sure consumers are not left with lesser content and higher rates.”
The rocky path to closing the Comcast-NBCU merger deal will at a minimum go through Capitol Hill, the FCC, the FTC, the DOJ, public debate, and a few other regulatory stops on the itinerary.
Stop The Comcast-NBCU Merger!!
Cable giant Comcast and NBC Universal have just announced that they're merging to form one of the most powerful media companies in the world. Washington and Wall Street are already saying this mega-merger is a done deal. If we don't act now to stop it, we'll have even more corporate control of our media, higher prices and fewer choices.It's a marriage made in hell, and we need a citizens' uprising to stop the merger.
Join the Uprising Against the Mega-Merger
Help us get 100,000 people to tell President Obama to make good on his campaign pledge to act "against the excessive concentration of [media] power in the hands of any one corporation, interest or small group." It's time for the president to kee
p his promise.Sign our call to action - and we will deliver your demands to the president, as well as to decision makers at the Department of Justice, Federal Trade Commission and Federal Communications Commission who have the power to stop this merger.
Comcast, the nation's largest cable company and the second largest Internet provider, would merge with one of the world's biggest producers of TV shows and movies. Here's what this merger would mean for you:
Higher Prices: With Comcast in control of everything from MSNBC, Bravo and E! to Universal Pictures, they'll be able to raise prices for their competitors that will be passed on to you.
Fewer Choices: Comcast would have a near-media monopoly in some communities, controlling cable and Internet access as well as local TV stations. They could push NBC shows ahead of other local and independent voices and programs, making it even harder to find alternatives on cable.
Less Innovation: This merged goliath could control what you watch and how you watch it, starving online video competitors or making you subscribe to Comcast to watch TV on the Internet.
This merger is a dangerous attempt by media moguls to seize control of both media content and distribution, and to use this control to squeeze consumers.
Stop the Merger: Join us at FreePress.net/Comcast
With your help, we can give consumers a voice and keep this doomed marriage from ever reaching the altar.
Thanks,
Josh Silver
Free Press
http://www.freepress.net/
P.S. We need as many people to speak out as possible. Spread the word on Facebook or Twitter or forward this e-mail to your friends. We'd love to hear from them, too!
Forwarded this message? You can also join our E-Activist list.
Want to learn more? Join us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.
CWA: Proposed Comcast-NBC Universal Deal Raises Serious Anti-Trust Concerns
Washington , D.C. -- The proposed merger of Comcast and NBC Universal raises real anti-trust concerns. If approved by regulators, this deal would create a mega-media company, one with the market power to determine what programs get aired and how much consumers must pay to view programming in every media outlet: cable, television and especially the Internet. This mega-company would control one out of every five viewing hours in the United States .
This mega-merger clearly spotlights the dangers of media consolidation in the Internet Age.
Comcast is not only the nation’s largest cable company, with 24 million customers, but it has 15 million Internet users and controls most must-have regional sports programming. If it takes on NBC Universal, it adds a major television network, 27 local televisions, cable channels including CNBC , MSNBC, Telemundo, Bravo, USA Network and more, plus Hulu, a growing stop especially for households under age 35.
This vertical integration of two very different companies – one controlling distribution and another controlling content – would give the merged company leverage over both in broadcast and network television and the market power to control pricing of content on the Internet. It clearly would threaten competition in the distribution of content and programming.
Comcast also has been cited for anti-democratic corporate governance processes. Comcast’s chief executive officer has super-majority voting rights at the company, despite owning just 3 percent of stock. Comcast has been criticized by investor and public interest groups for refusing to implement the one share-one vote policy that nearly all major corporations use for shareholder decisionmaking.
This mega-merger clearly spotlights the dangers of media consolidation in the Internet Age.
Comcast is not only the nation’s largest cable company, with 24 million customers, but it has 15 million Internet users and controls most must-have regional sports programming. If it takes on NBC Universal, it adds a major television network, 27 local televisions, cable channels including CNBC , MSNBC, Telemundo, Bravo, USA Network and more, plus Hulu, a growing stop especially for households under age 35.
This vertical integration of two very different companies – one controlling distribution and another controlling content – would give the merged company leverage over both in broadcast and network television and the market power to control pricing of content on the Internet. It clearly would threaten competition in the distribution of content and programming.
Comcast also has been cited for anti-democratic corporate governance processes. Comcast’s chief executive officer has super-majority voting rights at the company, despite owning just 3 percent of stock. Comcast has been criticized by investor and public interest groups for refusing to implement the one share-one vote policy that nearly all major corporations use for shareholder decisionmaking.
If Comcast is permitted to take over NBC Universal, this same undemocratic structure could be transferred to the new mega-media company, giving one person control over the dominant source of cable, television, Internet and media programming.
Comcast also has a long history of violating workers’ rights, firing workers who want union representation, refusing to bargain fairly for contracts, running aggressive campaigns to decertify unions and much more. CWA represents about 2,000 Comcast workers and about 2,500 NBC-Universal broadcast technicians and other workers.
CWA urges careful and close review of this proposed merger.
Comcast also has a long history of violating workers’ rights, firing workers who want union representation, refusing to bargain fairly for contracts, running aggressive campaigns to decertify unions and much more. CWA represents about 2,000 Comcast workers and about 2,500 NBC-Universal broadcast technicians and other workers.
CWA urges careful and close review of this proposed merger.
Candice Johnson
CWA Communications
202-434-1168
Comcast Gets NBC From G.E. in Deal That Reshapes TV
By TIM ARANGOAfter nearly nine months of negotiations, Comcast, the nation’s largest cable operator, finally reached an agreement on Thursday to acquire NBC Universal from the General Electric Company.
The deal valued NBC Universal at about $30 billion.
The agreement will create a joint venture, with Comcast owning 51 percent and G.E. owning 49 percent. Comcast will contribute to the joint venture its stable of cable channels, which includes Versus, the Golf Channel and E Entertainment, worth about $7.25 billion, and will pay G.E. about $6.5 billion in cash, for a total of $13.75 billion. For now, the network will remain NBC Universal, but ultimately Comcast could decide to change the name.
Almost immediately, the transaction , the transaction reshapes the nation’s entertainment industry, giving a cable provider a huge portfolio of new content, even as it raises the sector’s anxieties about the future.
In a joint statement announcing the agreement, Brian L. Roberts, the chief executive of Comcast, said the deal was “a perfect fit for Comcast and will allow us to become a leader in the development and distribution of multiplatform ‘anytime, anywhere’ media that American consumers are demanding.”The deal’s genesis lies in frequent flirtations over the last several years between Comcast and General Electric, although serious talks began in March. For Comcast, the purchase is the realization of its long-held ambition to be a major producer of television shows and movies. News of the negotiations broke in late September, and in the ensuing weeks G.E. worked to resolve details with Comcast, while simultaneously negotiating to buy out a 20 percent stake in NBC Universal held by Vivendi, the French telecommunications conglomerate. It was this last part that proved difficult.
G.E. and Comcast’s part of the transaction has essentially been complete for weeks, but the final step was held up by the negotiations between G.E. and Vivendi. Vivendi will receive about $5.8 billion for its stake.
Jeff Zucker, the current head of NBC Universal, will stay on as chief executive and would report to the chief executive of Comcast, Steve Burke. In a statement released by the companies Thursday morning, Mr. Zucker called the deal the “start of a new era” for NBC.
The deal could take up to 18 months to pass regulatory muster. Although Comcast is based in Philadelphia, NBC’s headquarters will remain in New York, the joint release said.
Most of NBC’s value is in its lucrative cable channels — USA, Bravo, SyFy, CNBC and MSNBC. The NBC network and Universal Studios will comprise only a small portion of the joint venture’s cash flow.
In some respects, G.E.’s decision to sell reflects the deteriorating state of the broadcast television industry, and a desire to exit a business that never quite fit well with its industrial side.
NBC has been mired in fourth place among the major broadcast networks, and the economics of the broadcast television business has deteriorated in recent years amid declining overall ratings and a decline in advertising. By contrast, cable channels have continued to thrive because they rely on a steady stream of subscriber fees from cable companies, such as Comcast.
Mr. Roberts, the Comcast chief executive, failed in 2004 with a hostile takeover bid for the Walt Disney Company. Since then, the company has taken a less ambitious approach to content, buying a stake in MGM and building up smaller cable channels and regional sports networks.
Shortly after news of the deal leaked in September, G.E. and Comcast signed a standstill agreement, which effectively blocked other bidders from entering the fray. Previously, G.E. had sought to entice Time Warner. More recently Rupert Murdoch, who controls the News Corporation, considered making an offer for NBC Universal.
Related articles:
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Tribune’s Payouts To Lenders’ Lawyers No Secret Anymore
By Peg Brickleyhttp://blogs.wsj.com/
Tribune Co. got a slap from a bankruptcy judge Tuesday for allegedly sneaking $24.7 million to lawyers and financial advisers for J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. and other lenders who are likely targets of a lawsuit over the company’s collapse.The money came from Tribune FN Cable Ventures Inc., the Tribune unit that owns a stake in the Food Network. Tribune FN Cable isn’t part of the parent company’s Chapter 11 case. According to Tribune, that made the payoffs kosher.
Sam Zell, the chairman and chief executive of Tribune Co., led the company’s 2007 leveraged buyout. Tribune’s unsecured creditors are investigating the deal, which saddled the media company with billions in debt.
Judge Kevin Carey called the long-hidden payments “a tactical error whether there was a nefarious motive or not.”
Nefarious? J.P. Morgan? You betcha, say bondholders, who are licking their chops at the prospect of suing J.P. Morgan and other lenders over the disastrous leveraged buyout that piled more than $8 billion in debt on Tribune.
J.P. Morgan and Tribune “orchestrated a way” to get money out of the company without tipping off the bankruptcy judge, said bondholder attorney David Rosner, who’s with Kasowitz Benson Torres & Friedman.
According to bondholders, the legal and financial advisory fees had nothing to do with enforcing Tribune’s rights under its $8 billion loan deals. Tribune is already picking up the defense costs for a lending group that is in the crosshairs of creditors itching to make someone pay for the soured deal, bondholders say.
Company attorney Bryan Krakauer said Tribune did disclose the bank fee payments to federal bankruptcy watchdogs, who failed to bark, and to the official committee of unsecured creditors, which had no objection.
J.P. Morgan has a seat on the committee but didn’t participate in the panel’s decision to stay quiet about the fees.
Carey said “it was a mistake” not to clue in the bankruptcy court on the payments. He ordered Tribune to disclose the payments and prepare for an evidentiary hearing on whether the money should come back.
How NBC's Grinch Could Steal Christmas
Union drops threat against Christmas Tree lighting
A few hours before Wednesday’s broadcast of “Christmas in Rockefeller Center” on NBC, the National Association of Broadcast Employees and Technicians (NABET-CWA) Local 11 withdrew its threat to pull the plug on the event with a job action.“We're not going to let the Grinch at NBC ruin Christmas for millions of people around the world. So we're going to stay on the job. We hope that NBC sees Christmas as a time of goodwill, too, and that they negotiate a new and fair contract with us,” said union president Ed McEwan.
How NBC's Grinch Could Steal Christmas
Every Who
In the crew
Liked the Christmas tree lighting a lot...
But the NBC grinch just didn't see
Without them, the lights would light not!
The grinch won't negotiate with his employees!
Now, please don't ask why.
There's no reason anyone sees.
But if he won't, the crew may just might
Do something that would be NBC's blight.
They'll be forced from 30 Rock, and walk away,
And make things go dark come Christmas Day!
They have no choice, but to put out the tree lights,
Beginning maybe just maybe Tonight!
Jane Krakowski and Zachary Levi will have to stand there and say
Not Aretha, nor Alicia, nor Shakira will be able to play.
For the NBC grinch's heart is two sizes too small,
He won't meet with the workers, though they're right down the hall.
We will challenge the grinch, to quit going at it alone.
___________________
NBC Labor Dispute Threatens Rockefeller Center Christmas Special
By Danny Shea
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/
By Danny Shea
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/
A labor dispute is threatening NBC's "Christmas in Rockefeller Center" telecast.
The National Association of Broadcast Employees and Technicians (NABET-CWA) Local 11, which represents nearly 3,000 of NBC's producers, writers, and technicians, vowed Tuesday to "pull the plug" on Wednesday's Christmas special -— which includes the lighting of the Rockefeller Center Christmas tree — over failed negotiations with NBC management.
The union's contract expired in March and the union says there's been very little progress since talks began last year, describing NBC management as "increasingly hostile" in "ignoring the concerns of the union's membership."
"We can't let the Grinch at NBC steal another Christmas from thousands of honest working people," said NABET-CWA Local 11 president Ed McEwan. "This charade must stop. Christmas is supposed to be a time of goodwill, but the network's management is trying to hide behind their fancy lights while leaving their employees in the dark."
The union has set up a website, NBCStoleChristmas.com, to air their concerns and attempt to avert a strike during Wednesday's Christmas tree ceremony.
NBC did not respond to a request for comment on the union dispute.
Tribune Co. names Randy Michaels CEO; Sam Zell remains chairman
http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/
Randy Michaels today was named chief executive of Tribune Co., succeeding Sam Zell, who remains chairman of the Chicago-based media concern that has been operating under Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection for nearly a year.
Michaels, 57, joined Tribune Co.’s executive ranks when Zell took the company private in a debt-heavy December 2007 transaction, becoming its chief operating officer half a year later. With the elevation to CEO, Michaels also will join the Tribune Co. board.
Calling Tribune Co. “a great company with a great future,” Michaels said in today's announcement that: “There is a lot of work yet to do, but we have tremendously talented people and world-class brands in print, on air and online. Our businesses are profitable and we’re gaining market-share and momentum in a tough environment. The entire management team is focused on the long-term and keeping Tribune at the cutting-edge of creativity and innovation, which will translate into success on the bottom-line.”
Randy Michaels today was named chief executive of Tribune Co., succeeding Sam Zell, who remains chairman of the Chicago-based media concern that has been operating under Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection for nearly a year.Michaels, 57, joined Tribune Co.’s executive ranks when Zell took the company private in a debt-heavy December 2007 transaction, becoming its chief operating officer half a year later. With the elevation to CEO, Michaels also will join the Tribune Co. board.
The announcement came a day after a U.S. Bankruptcy Court judge in Delaware extended until Feb. 28 Tribune Co.’s exclusive right to file a reorganization plan in its Chapter 11 case. That was one month earlier than the company has requested, but thwarted, at least temporarily, a group of senior creditors determined to assume control of the case by requesting the right to file their own plan.
A spokesman for Tribune Co., parent of the Chicago Tribune, the Los Angeles Times, WGN-Ch. 9, WGN-AM 720 and assorted other newspaper, TV and digital assets around the country, said the promotion of Michaels did not require bankruptcy court approval.
Ultimately, Tribune Co.’s creditors will decide if Michaels and the rest of Zell’s team remain at the company. While the precise ownership structure of the post-Chapter 11 company is still being negotiated, a plan to swap Tribune's $13 billion debt burden for equity will give some combination of creditors ownership of the media conglomerate, erasing Zell's ownership position. The creditors will then pick their own board of directors and it will choose its a management team.
Sources close to the situation say it's still unclear how Michaels fits into the senior lenders' thinking.
Sam Zell, 68, in the announcement, said today's appointment was a reflection of Michaels’ increasing responsibilities. “At this point in Tribune’s evolution, no one is better suited to lead the company forward,” Zell said in his statement. “Randy has a unique combination of real-time creativity, expertise and passion, and I completely trust his judgment and his leadership.”
Michaels, who was born Benjamin Homel, got his start in media as a Buffalo radio engineer while still a teen-ager. He took on the name Randy Michaels for on-air work. He worked his way through the ranks of Taft Broadcasting as a programming executive, later helping launch Republic Broadcasting, which was acquired by Jacor in 1986.Zell invested in Jacor in 1993 and Michaels became its CEO in 1996, and together they went on an acquisition spree. Three years later, Clear Channel bought Jacor for $2.8 billion. Zell left radio, but Michaels stayed with Clear Channel to run its radio division. Michaels left Clear Channel in 2002.
Later, in a note to Tribune Co. employees, Zell noted the “seismic shift in Tribune’s focus and culture” over the last two years. “We’re moving in the right direction and into the new year with energy and optimism,” he wrote.
Chicago Tribune reporter Michael Oneal contributed to this report.
Comcast, NBC Aim To Ease Feds' Concerns
By Cecilia Kang
In previous major media mergers, companies have agreed to preserve local news coverage and grant competitors access to content, for example. Sources familiar with the Comcast-NBC Universal talks said such promises would probably be announced with the merger.
The $30 billion transaction would significantly reshape the media landscape by giving the nation's largest cable and broadband Internet provider control over content that makes up one out of five TV viewing hours, according to some analysts. NBC owns Universal Studios, theme parks, shows such as "The Biggest Loser" and "Heroes," and cable channels such as USA Network, Bravo and CNBC.
The deal, which has been in the works for months, was jump-started Monday when General Electric agreed to acquire the portion of NBC Universal it doesn't own from French conglomerate Vivendi for $5.8 billion, according to sources. That agreement was the remaining hurdle for Philadelphia-based Comcast to consummate its purchase of NBC Universal.
Under the terms of the merger, Comcast is expected to pay about $6 billion in cash for a 51 percent stake in NBC Universal. GE would retain a 49 percent stake, and Comcast would contribute its cable assets to the joint venture. Comcast would control the venture's day-to-day operations and have the right to buy the rest of NBC Universal within seven years, according to the sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the deal has not been formally announced.
Big hurdles
If completed, the deal would extend Comcast's vision to bring more content to its subscribers in as many forms as possible -- TV, computers and mobile devices.
But the proposed merger faces significant hurdles, including a close review from federal regulators that some analysts said could last a year. Either the Federal Trade Commission or Justice Department will review whether the deal is anti-competitive, and the Federal Communications Commission will examine how the deal affects consumers.
NBC Universal owns 34 TV stations, including District-based WRC (Channel 4), and Comcast dominates cable service, owning most of the major systems in the area. The only major jurisdiction Comcast does not serve in Washington's immediate suburbs is Fairfax County.
Although no regulation prevents ownership of a broadcast station and cable assets in the same market, such combinations would probably raise concerns. Regulators conceivably could force Comcast to sell its broadcast or cable stations in the same region as a condition of approval. Washington is one of several markets where Comcast and NBC have such properties.
Sources familiar with the deal said the joint venture has no plans to divest its local TV stations or the NBC network.
Online video scrutiny
Another area expected to draw regulatory scrutiny is online video distribution. Comcast hopes to expand its offerings by acquiring NBC's content.
Public interest groups have said Comcast could have too much control over content amid a shifting media landscape that is moving increasingly to the Web.
The FCC has a history of nurturing nascent video distributors to promote competition. A source at the Justice Department said the antitrust division is considering questions about how the merger would affect online distribution models such as Hulu -- a joint venture owned by programmers, including NBC -- and a cable industry plan, TV Everywhere, that will bring more shows online, but only to cable subscribers.
"They will face a year-long gauntlet of regulatory and political hearings and conditions that threaten to derail not just the synergy value that might otherwise be achieved in a combination, but in a worst case scenario, that might threaten the structural attractiveness of the core businesses of both Comcast and NBCU," Craig Moffett, an analyst at Bernstein Research, wrote in a note Tuesday.
Comcast and GE declined to comment. A Comcast spokeswoman, however, has said the company's online video strategy allows programmers to negotiate deals with other cable, satellite and online distributors of content.
The deal follows similar media mergers.
Time Warner spun off AOL this year, separating its cable and Time Warner content business. Comcast also made a failed bid for Walt Disney in 2004.
Washington Post Staff writers Paul Farhi in Washington and Tomoeh Murakami Tse in New York contributed to this report.
Washington Post Staff Writer
A merger between Comcast and NBC Universal, expected to be announced by Thursday, would probably come with concessions aimed at forestalling a drawn-out federal review of the deal, sources close to the negotiations said.
In previous major media mergers, companies have agreed to preserve local news coverage and grant competitors access to content, for example. Sources familiar with the Comcast-NBC Universal talks said such promises would probably be announced with the merger.
The $30 billion transaction would significantly reshape the media landscape by giving the nation's largest cable and broadband Internet provider control over content that makes up one out of five TV viewing hours, according to some analysts. NBC owns Universal Studios, theme parks, shows such as "The Biggest Loser" and "Heroes," and cable channels such as USA Network, Bravo and CNBC.
The deal, which has been in the works for months, was jump-started Monday when General Electric agreed to acquire the portion of NBC Universal it doesn't own from French conglomerate Vivendi for $5.8 billion, according to sources. That agreement was the remaining hurdle for Philadelphia-based Comcast to consummate its purchase of NBC Universal.
Under the terms of the merger, Comcast is expected to pay about $6 billion in cash for a 51 percent stake in NBC Universal. GE would retain a 49 percent stake, and Comcast would contribute its cable assets to the joint venture. Comcast would control the venture's day-to-day operations and have the right to buy the rest of NBC Universal within seven years, according to the sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the deal has not been formally announced.
Big hurdles
If completed, the deal would extend Comcast's vision to bring more content to its subscribers in as many forms as possible -- TV, computers and mobile devices.
But the proposed merger faces significant hurdles, including a close review from federal regulators that some analysts said could last a year. Either the Federal Trade Commission or Justice Department will review whether the deal is anti-competitive, and the Federal Communications Commission will examine how the deal affects consumers.
The deal also has major implications for the Washington region.
NBC Universal owns 34 TV stations, including District-based WRC (Channel 4), and Comcast dominates cable service, owning most of the major systems in the area. The only major jurisdiction Comcast does not serve in Washington's immediate suburbs is Fairfax County.
Although no regulation prevents ownership of a broadcast station and cable assets in the same market, such combinations would probably raise concerns. Regulators conceivably could force Comcast to sell its broadcast or cable stations in the same region as a condition of approval. Washington is one of several markets where Comcast and NBC have such properties.
Sources familiar with the deal said the joint venture has no plans to divest its local TV stations or the NBC network.
Online video scrutiny
Another area expected to draw regulatory scrutiny is online video distribution. Comcast hopes to expand its offerings by acquiring NBC's content.
The cable operator's video-on-demand service, which is separate from its online aspirations, was started six years ago with a few hundred titles and has a library of 17,000 shows and draws 350 million views a month.
Public interest groups have said Comcast could have too much control over content amid a shifting media landscape that is moving increasingly to the Web.
The FCC has a history of nurturing nascent video distributors to promote competition. A source at the Justice Department said the antitrust division is considering questions about how the merger would affect online distribution models such as Hulu -- a joint venture owned by programmers, including NBC -- and a cable industry plan, TV Everywhere, that will bring more shows online, but only to cable subscribers.
"They will face a year-long gauntlet of regulatory and political hearings and conditions that threaten to derail not just the synergy value that might otherwise be achieved in a combination, but in a worst case scenario, that might threaten the structural attractiveness of the core businesses of both Comcast and NBCU," Craig Moffett, an analyst at Bernstein Research, wrote in a note Tuesday.
Comcast and GE declined to comment. A Comcast spokeswoman, however, has said the company's online video strategy allows programmers to negotiate deals with other cable, satellite and online distributors of content.
The deal follows similar media mergers.
In 2003, News Corp. bought Direct TV, and in 2001 Time Warner merged with AOL in a $100 billion deal. Those mergers failed, with News Corp. divesting its shares in Direct TV.
Time Warner spun off AOL this year, separating its cable and Time Warner content business. Comcast also made a failed bid for Walt Disney in 2004.
Washington Post Staff writers Paul Farhi in Washington and Tomoeh Murakami Tse in New York contributed to this report.
People who read this also read...
In Comcast-NBC merger, companies will seek to ease regulator concerns
A new kind of company, a new challenge for feds
Comcast-NBC Universal: Same old media merger, or something different?
Comcast-NBC merger nears, questions begin
Vivendi's sale of NBC clears way for Comcast; public interest groups decry merger
In Comcast-NBC merger, companies will seek to ease regulator concerns
A new kind of company, a new challenge for feds
Comcast-NBC Universal: Same old media merger, or something different?
Comcast-NBC merger nears, questions begin
Vivendi's sale of NBC clears way for Comcast; public interest groups decry merger