Jazz Has Endured, Can Public Media?

The FCC’s media ownership rules have never resulted in commercial programming that fully reflects local communities.  Local newscasts make up only a small portion of local radio and television broadcast schedules.  The vast majority of other programming is national, network programming and syndicated shows.  While radio stations have more of a “local feel” than television, their most popular news programming is often syndicated, and music formats are programmed based on national record sales. 

Public media is critical to filling the void left by commercial broadcasters.  But several structural changes have threatened the ability of public media to thrive and provide local content. 

Newark, New Jersey’s WBGO 88.3FM “Jazz 88” is a prime example both of public media done well and what we stand to lose if public broadcasting is not preserved.  Founded in 1979, WBGO was New Jersey’s first public radio station.  While WBGO is based in the predominantly African-American city of Newark, it can be heard in all five New York City boroughs, north of the city in Rockland and Westchester Counties, Long Island, and parts of Connecticut.  The station now streams its broadcast and boasts membership from listeners around the world.  Despite its far flung reach, WBGO has never lost sight of its mission to provide programming for the City of Newark. 

But WBGO has moved its antennae transmitter to Manhattan.  Some are worried the move will result in less Newark-specific programming.  This is not inconceivable.  The precipitous decline in the mainstream popularity in jazz (see the latest Recording Industry Association of America data here) could pressure WBGO to offset listener attrition by increasing its New York-specific content.  But this hasn’t happened —yet. 

New Jersey has decided to exit the public broadcasting business altogether.  Earlier this year, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie signed off on a deal to transfer the operations of the New Jersey Public Television Network to New York’s WNET.  New York Public Radio has also acquired four of New Jersey’s state-owned radio licenses.  Philadelphia’s WHYY has acquired another five of New Jersey’s radio licenses.  Some advocates have fought to ensure the new owners will continue to program these properties with local, New Jersey content.  WNET is contractually required to program NJN with New Jersey-based content.  But the term of the deal is only five years.  What happens after those five years have expired is anyone’s guess, and the fates of the radio properties now owned by entities in New York and Philadelphia remains up in the air.

Congress has also sought to end public broadcasting.  Earlier this year, Republicans pushed two bills to defund National Public Radio (NPR) and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB).  After significant public outcry, the bills failed, but the effort brought public broadcasting to a precipice, and there is no reason to conclude that Congress will pass up the next opportunity to defund public broadcasting.

The incentives for public media and those of commercial media are quite different. Media companies must program their stations in a way that generates profits, not in light of the amount of concentration and consolidation you and I wish there were, but in light of what the climate actually is. And with advertising dollars moving farther away from traditional, broadcast-only media outlets, especially radio, and toward multi-platform brands that engage across different types of media, we can expect less localism from the private sector—not more. Public broadcasting doesn’t have those same kinds of constraints because their mandate is to fill the void left by commercial media in exchange for tax incentives.

Currently, people have few choices but to consume mass appeal content. Corporate decision makers believe that what makes mass appeal content so attractive and profitable is that the greater number of platforms for-profit companies are engaged with, the more difficult it becomes to maintain a consistent brand identity. So mass appeal formatting is sort of a no-brainer—it is easy to produce and control. Reinforcing this is the fact that our public institutions—courts—have deemed mass-appeal approaches to be most consistent with what the Founder’s envisioned. 

In Lutheran Church Missouri-Synod v. FCC, Judge Silberman, writing for the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, struck down the FCC’s Equal Employment Opportunity rules, reasoning that even considering racially based differences is antithetical to the Constitution and to democracy.  In her famous dissent in Metro Broadcasting v. FCC, Justice O’Connor questioned whether diverse media ownership correlates with diverse programming. Justice O’Connor reasoned that broadcasters, irrespective of their race, would respond to what the market dictates. 

Commercial media has become less local not more.  If we lose public, locally-focused broadcasting, we will lose an important source of local content that is unconstrained by the need to be mass appeal.    

Wireless Taxes: Why You Don’t Have $10 for Lunch Today

“This tax, that tax, what do they all mean?  Well, I guess I have to pay them if I want to keep this phone.”  Sound familiar?

Yesterday, the House of Representatives passed the Wireless Tax Fairness Act of 2011, which would freeze any increases in state and local taxes on wireless services.  Now that the House has passed its version of the bill, the Senate should follow suit and pass this legislation.  Both chambers should consider passing a similar measure—the Digital Goods and Services Tax Fairness Act of 2011—which would prevent new taxes on digital goods and services.  Digital goods such as apps and e-books do not burden state resources in the same way that physical goods and services do, and so they should not be taxed at the same rate.

Preventing tax increases on wireless services is a small but significant step toward ensuring that broadband remains affordable for low-income consumers who are disproportionately people of color.  Increases to wireless bills that may seem slight to middle-class and upper income consumers can be enough to cause low-income consumers to cancel or forego their wireless service.  For example, a recent paper by Glenn Woroch estimates that adding $4.17 to the average wireless bill of $47.21 would lead to a 7% drop in wireless subscribership levels.

Three of the top 5 states with the highest wireless tax rates are home to large cities with African-American and Latino populations exceeding the national average.  In some states, wireless service taxes are more than twice the sales tax placed upon physical goods.  New York, for example, has the highest wireless service tax rate (17.78%) among states with majority-minority cities.  Contrast this with New York’s state-wide sales tax rate of 8.25%.  Other such states include Florida (wireless service tax: 16.57%/statewide sales tax: 7.25%) and Illinois (wireless service tax: 15.85%/statewide sales tax: 9%).

Congress should prevent increases to state taxes on digital goods and services as well.  The Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies has reported that African-Americans (32%) and Latinos (29%) are more likely than white Americans (23%) to download apps to their cell phones.  Further, according to Nielsen, 45% of Latinos and 33% of African-Americans own smartphones, as compared to 27% of white mobile users.  And what would the apps market be without smartphones?

Smarter devices and services have made quality goods and services more accessible to low-income consumers.  However, a regressive tax mechanism applied to wireless service, digital goods and digital services would further repress this potential utility of mobile broadband.  For example, several online services can assist low-income consumers in buying groceries if they live too far away from well-stocked and more reasonably priced supermarkets.  Previous studies have shown that many low-income, urban neighborhoods are “food deserts” without feasible access to stores with an array of quality produce and meats.  Online services, such as Peapod, deliver quality meats, seafood and produce to consumers beyond the one-mile radius of partnering supermarkets. Last week, Amazon debuted a new service that allows consumers to purchase basic groceries—including coffee, cereal, meat, and seafood—with few geographic restrictions at all.  Thus, while further raising wireless taxes may create a revenue stream to fund other state and local initiatives, the gains from those initiatives will be negated by nudging low-income consumers toward purchasing lower quality goods at higher prices, and thereby exacerbating negative health and economic outcomes.

Comprehensive and equitable tax policies are absolutely critical for creating a mobile broadband environment that is more conducive to improving conditions in low-income communities. 

If you are interested in learning more about the effect of excessive state and local taxes on wireless service and digital goods and services, read the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies’ report released ahead of yesterday’s House vote.

“This tax, that tax, what do they all mean?  Well, I guess I have to pay them if I want to keep this phone.”  Sound familiar?

On Monday, the House of Representatives passed the Wireless Tax Fairness Act of 2011, which would freeze any increases in state and local taxes on wireless services.  Now that the House has passed its version of the bill, the Senate should follow suit and pass this legislation.  Both chambers should consider passing a similar measure—the Digital Goods and Services Tax Fairness Act of 2011—which would prevent new taxes on digital goods and services.  Digital goods such as apps and e-books do not burden state resources in the same way that physical goods and services do, and so they should not be taxed at the same rate.

Preventing tax increases on wireless services is a small but significant step toward ensuring that broadband remains affordable for low-income consumers who are disproportionately people of color.  Increases to wireless bills that may seem slight to middle-class and upper income consumers can be enough to cause low-income consumers to cancel or forego their wireless service.  For example, a recent paper by Glenn Woroch estimates that adding $4.17 to the average wireless bill of $47.21 would lead to a 7% drop in wireless subscribership levels.

Three of the top 5 states with the highest wireless tax rates are home to large cities with African-American and Latino populations exceeding the national average.  In some states, wireless service taxes are more than twice the sales tax placed upon physical goods.  New York, for example, has the highest wireless service tax rate (17.78%) among states with majority-minority cities.  Contrast this with New York’s state-wide sales tax rate of 8.25%.  Other such states include Florida (wireless service tax: 16.57%/statewide sales tax: 7.25%) and Illinois (wireless service tax: 15.85%/statewide sales tax: 9%).

Congress should prevent increases to state taxes on digital goods and services as well.  The Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies has reported that African-Americans (32%) and Latinos (29%) are more likely than white Americans (23%) to download apps to their cell phones.  Further, according to Nielsen, 45% of Latinos and 33% of African-Americans own smartphones, as compared to 27% of white mobile users.  And what would the apps market be without smartphones?

Smarter devices and services have made quality goods and services more accessible to low-income consumers.  However, a regressive tax mechanism applied to wireless service, digital goods and digital services would further repress this potential utility of mobile broadband.  For example, several online services can assist low-income consumers in buying groceries if they live too far away from well-stocked and more reasonably priced supermarkets.  Previous studies have shown that many low-income, urban neighborhoods are “food deserts” without feasible access to stores with an array of quality produce and meats.  Online services, such as Peapod, deliver quality meats, seafood and produce to consumers beyond the one-mile radius of partnering supermarkets. Last week, Amazon debuted a new service that allows consumers to purchase basic groceries—including coffee, cereal, meat, and seafood—with few geographic restrictions at all.  Thus, while further raising wireless taxes may create a revenue stream to fund other state and local initiatives, the gains from those initiatives will be negated by nudging low-income consumers toward purchasing lower quality goods at higher prices, and thereby exacerbating negative health and economic outcomes.

Comprehensive and equitable tax policies are absolutely critical for creating a mobile broadband environment that is more conducive to improving conditions in low-income communities. 

If you are interested in learning more about the effect of excessive state and local taxes on wireless service and digital goods and services, read the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies’ report released ahead of yesterday’s House vote.

Will McDonald’s TV be Good for African-Americans?

McDonald’s announced today that it will launch an HDTV station in its restaurants. The stations will feature local content.  The channel is expected to reach 18 to 20 million customers per month. A recent study shows that predominantly African-American communities have an average of 2.4 McDonald’s restaurants per square mile, compared to 1.5 restaurants in predominantly white neighborhoods.  African-Americans also watch the most TV, with 7 hrs. and 12 minutes per day, compared to the national average of 5 hrs. and 11 mins. per day.  Minorities are also avid mobile users.  If the station does well, mobile apps allowing customers to access McDonald’s programming anywhere are just around the corner.  Is this a good thing for low-income African-Americans who rely on cheap fast food to survive?  What are health food establishments, such as Whole Foods, doing to reach low-income African-Americans?

Radio One Flips to Jack-FM in Columbus, but Keeps Joyner on in Mornings

Radio One flipped to free-form “Jack-FM” in Columbus, OH, but kept Tom Joyner on in mornings. They’re playing Rolling Stones/Satisfaction now. Other artists include Nirvana, Gin Blossoms, and Young MC. I wonder if another owner would have kept TJ on in mornings with this format. If history is any guide, the answer is, “no.” (Although Radio One is hurting right now and so probably couldn’t afford to breach the contract with TJ.)

STEM and Play: What the Old Geeks’ Network Doesn’t Want You to Know

“There can be no understanding between the hand and the brain unless the heart acts as mediator.” - Maria, from Fritz Lang’s “Metropolis” (1927)

“Do what you love and success will follow.”  That is standard advice in any number of self-help books.  But too few students are inspired to love science, technology, engineering and math (“STEM”).  These students end up pursuing liberal arts credentials that many employers scoff at if they are not combined with real-world experience.  

In both STEM and non-STEM fields, the best jobs are going to the grads who are most prepared, whether through college level work alone or internships.  Unpaid internships are a backstop for liberal arts graduates unable to find work in a job market that demands STEM skills.  Under this arrangement, employers get free labor and, in exchange, they offer college graduates training in additional skills newbies would otherwise not be able to acquire working at the local mall.  But unpaid internships are fine for college graduates with families who can sustain them.  For liberal arts graduates from poorer families, unpaid internships are much less of an option. 

On the other hand, college preparation alone has provided STEM grads with a sufficient foundation for entry-level work.  Some peg entry level earnings for top-flight STEM grads at close to or above six-figures.  Glassdoor, a site that crowdsources data on different companies’ working conditions, reports that the average starting salary for software engineers in Silicon Valley is $98,000.  For Google, the starting rate for software engineers can be upwards of $151,000.  

The Census Bureau and U.S. Department of Commerce reported earlier this week that America’s poverty rate is increasing at an alarming rate.  The overall poverty rate jumped from 14.3 percent in 2009 to 15.1 percent in 2010.  But a whopping 27.4 percent of Blacks and 26.6 percent of Hispanics are now living below the poverty line, compared to just 9.9 percent of Whites.

But many African-Americans and Hispanics are choosing not to go to college at all or, if they do decide to attend college, do not major in STEM fields.  Another report released by the Department of Commerce this week shows that, in 2009, just 22 percent of non-Hispanic Blacks and 14 percent of Hispanics have bachelor’s degrees, compared to 54 percent of Asians and 35 percent of non-Hispanic Whites.  Of these, just 17 percent of Black, non-Hispanic and 21 percent of Hispanic college graduates majored in STEM disciplines, compared to 22 percent of White, non-Hispanic graduates and 43 percent of Asian, non-Hispanic graduates.

These facts underscore the need to improve STEM education in low-income school districts, which are disproportionately comprised of African-Americans and Latinos.  But improving STEM, to the exclusion of liberal arts education, evokes the classic dystopian scenario in which some people are relegated to performing manual labor, while those at the top do comparatively little, enjoying what Clay Shirkey famously described as the “cognitive surplus”— the amount of time freed up by the Internet which allows the most fortunate among us to spend less time working and more time playing.

In his book “In the Plex: How Google Thinks, Works, and Shapes Our Lives,” Steven Levy describes a corporate culture that celebrates practiced quantitative geniuses, while at the same time pushes employees to be creative and inventive.  Levy depicts Google co-founder Sergey Brin as quantitatively brilliant, but as being more interested in taking courses in swimming and gymnastics, than in earning a Ph.D. in computer science.  Levy also describes Marissa Mayer, Google’s Vice President of Location and Local Services, who, before entering Stanford, in addition to being a computer whiz, was also an accomplished ballerina.  Even today, Mayer says that, although she is a technologist, she did not want to lose herself in her profession.  That is why she remains interested in art, dance, clothes and travel.  The Los Angeles Times reports that Mayer once paid $60,000 at a charity auction to have lunch with Oscar de la Renta and, despite her busy schedule, has found time to climb Mt. Kilimanjaro and go snorkeling in Iceland.

Daniel Pink pointed to this trend in his book “A Whole New Mind: Why Right-Brainers Will Rule the Future.”  Pink asserts that no longer will modern workers be able to rely on purely mechanical skills.  Pink says that, in order to become innovators, workers will need to master the “right-brained” skills of design, story, symphony, empathy, play, and meaning.  Pink is careful to point out that this does not mean that technical skills are no longer important.  What it does mean, however, is that modern workers must master both technical, “left-brained” skills and conceptual, “right-brained” skills in order to thrive in the modern workplace.

But many public schools in America are pursuing the exact opposite agenda.   By simultaneously “teaching to the test,” so that teachers and students will conform to the rigorous testing benchmarks mandated by the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), and drastically reducing arts education, these schools are effectively teaching students to fill purely utilitarian roles.  The jobs these students are being prepared for are precisely those that are most easily commoditized and most susceptible to outsourcing. 

The National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) reported earlier this year that it is minority students who have been hit hardest by cuts to arts education.   The NEA report revealed that only 26 percent of African-Americans between 18 and 24 reported receiving any arts education during childhood.  This reflects an extremely sharp decline from 51 percent seen in 1982.  For Hispanics, the percentage of respondents who received any arts education during childhood plummeted from 47 percent in 1982 to 28 percent in 2008.  On the other hand, the number of Whites reporting that they received arts education dropped only slightly from 59.2 percent in 1982 to 57.9 percent in 2008.

To prepare African-American and Hispanic students for the jobs of the future, it is simply not acceptable for policy makers to focus solely on improving STEM education.  Students not interested in STEM fields by default should be encouraged to actualize their creative interests through science and technology.  Visual artists can be taught to design video games and modeling applications.  Students interested in education can be taught how to create and produce technologies to facilitate collaboration in the classroom.  Business majors who are highly skilled in mathematics are incredibly valuable in an extremely volatile world economy that needs as much certainty as possible.  At the same time, students who are only interested in STEM should not be considered low-risk.  To permit these students to become deficient in the liberal arts would do them a tremendous disservice. 

Students of color can also be mountain climbers, but that is not the message we are sending.  What we are doing is making life even easier for the students at the top of the pecking order.