Media Matters for America

Campaigns

• Tell Congress: Save Public Broadcasting

  The White House just released a budget proposal that would eliminate funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), which supports National Public Radio (NPR) and the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS). We can’t let this happen. For 50 years, Americans have turned to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting for local news, quality educational programming, and independent journalism without corporate or political influence, no matter where they live. In rural communities with few or no free broadcasting options, the CPB is a critical lifeline for information. The Corporation for Public Broadcasting relies almost entirely on the federal government for its funding. It’s one of the last remaining U.S. media groups that is insulated from commercial or political pressure -- and in today’s fragmented news landscape, the independent voices it supports are more valuable than ever. The threat is real: We’ve seen profit-driven outlets cozy up to Donald Trump to boost ratings and ad revenues. Last year, the president of CBS defended wall-to-wall coverage of Trump, saying that “it may not be good for America, but it's damn good for CBS” -- because “the money’s rolling in.” NBC refused to part ways with Trump as executive producer of its reality show The Celebrity Apprentice. And CNN continues to try to appeal to Trump by hiring his former campaign officials. Over the next six weeks, Congress will consider Trump’s request to cut the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and legislators will release their own budget proposal. We can’t afford to lose the unique voices and perspectives that PBS, NPR, and hundreds of local stations across the country contribute to our public debate -- and it’s time to make sure our representatives know it. Take action now: Don’t let Trump wipe out public broadcasting!

  6,622 of 7,000 Signatures

  Created by Cynthia Padera, Media Matters
• Tell Advertisers: Boycott Sean Hannity

  At this point, if a company is sponsoring Sean Hannity's show, they are essentially supporting a Trump propaganda operation. It needs to stop. Sean Hannity has a long record of right-wing chicanery, lies, and vitriol. But his program has morphed into something more dangerous than just partisan hackery -- he’s been exposed as a full-blown propagandist who conspires with the Trump administration to spread fabricated stories, smear detractors, and undercut the rule of law. 21st Century Fox (Fox News' parent company) won't hold him accountable. So, there are two options: 1) Do nothing; or 2) Take action to hold Hannity accountable. Spreading misinformation is Hannity's business model, and now he’s doing it on behalf of the Trump administration. His propagandizing has become so odious that he was condemned by some of his coworkers, who reportedly told The Daily Beast that the host was "'embarrassing' the network" and that "some people need to be fired. It's past time for Hannity to go. If Fox won’t fire Hannity, then advertisers should run as fast as they can, or else they run the risk of being complicit in his deceit and recklessness. Advertisers will get burned if they continue to associate with Hannity -- plain and simple. It's up to this grassroots movement -- individuals, organizations, and hundreds of independent organizers -- to keep up the pressure. Together, their efforts and your participation will have a tremendous impact. --------- Here are a few of Hannity's top advertisers: - DirecTV - Dollar Shave Club - Mercedes Benz - Mitsubishi - NutriSystem Full list here: https://www.mediamatters.org/research/2017/05/23/these-are-sean-hannitys-advertisers/216607

  3,025 of 4,000 Signatures

  Created by Angelo Carusone, Media Matters
• Tell Facebook: The Weekly Standard Is Not Fit To Fact-Check

  Facebook has a checkered history of addressing fake news and misinformation: Last year, after the social media giant fired its human editors following a conservative hissy fit, fake news stories immediately made their way into the “trending topics” section of the website. Then, after the scope of Facebook’s fake news problem became more evident, Mark Zuckerberg dismissed and downplayed the problem. And now, Facebook is under fire for allowing Russian trolls to hijack the network’s advertising platform during the 2016 election without consequence. Because of all this and pressure from people like you, the social media giant last winter announced a partnership with independent, nonpartisan news outlets -- like The Associated Press, PolitiFact, Snopes, and FactCheck.org -- to analyze and fact-check news stories. But now, The Weekly Standard, a right-wing publication with a history of partisan lies, is reportedly in talks with Facebook to become a fact-checking partner in the platform’s fight against fake news. The Weekly Standard is different from Facebook’s current fact-checking partners. Over the past two decades, the outlet has routinely pushed right-wing talking points and misinformation, including by serving as the foremost media booster for the Iraq War. Most recently, the Standard published a piece headlined “Death Panels: Sarah Palin Was Right,” referring to a GOP lie fabricated in 2009 regarding nonexistent health care rationing by malevolent bureaucrats. The false claim was so notorious that PolitiFact, which is already a partner on Facebook’s fake news initiative, deemed it its 2009 “Lie of the Year.” And The Weekly Standard has no experience fact-checking. Instead, it’s now looking to hire for its first ever fact-checker in order to look legitimate and gain access to special capabilities on the back end of Facebook. But lack of fact-checking experience aside, the Standard -- which bills itself as “A Weekly Conservative Magazine & Blog” -- has a clear agenda and partisan history that should disqualify it from being designated a nonpartisan fact-checker. The potential collaboration is allegedly “part of Facebook’s attempt to ‘appease all sides’” -- but what the site is really doing is caving yet again to conservative pressure, this time by treating nonpartisan fact-checkers that have to routinely call out right-wing lies as “liberal.” We’ve seen Facebook try to play this game before, and it ended disastrously. This isn’t about excluding or censoring conservatives from the fight against fake news; indeed, researchers and experts have called on conservatives to help fight the problem, and the social media giant could certainly use the help. But given The Weekly Standard’s history, Facebook has no place partnering with the outlet to provide neutral and independent analysis.

  473 of 500 Signatures

  Created by Angelo Carusone, Media Matters
• Public Health Info Should Be Free: Remove Paywalls from Coronavirus Articles

  Preventing transmission of the novel coronavirus is an urgent public health issue. Access to information on this rapidly evolving situation is essential to individual and community safety. Keeping vital information behind a paywall prevents nonsubscribers from accessing important information, and it disproportionately affects people with fewer financial resources. The Seattle Times recently announced that it would allow unlimited public access to stories about the virus. Other major newspapers should follow their lead for the safety of the public. [1] To give a sense of the scope of information being held back, Harvard epidemiologist Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding analyzed reporting about coronavirus from major papers between January 1, 2020, and February 20, 2020, and found thousands of coronavirus-related articles behind paywalls at seven large papers [2]: The New York Times: 1,012 The Washington Post: 981 The Wall Street Journal: 749 Los Angeles Times: 490 The Miami Herald: 463 The Boston Globe: 340 Chicago Tribune: 292 The novel coronavirus has the potential to touch the lives of billions of people. The public must be empowered with reliable and up-to-date information in order to take practical safety measures and prevent transmission of the virus. Sharing accurate information also guards against the spread of unnecessary panic. Access to these resources is also an issue of equity -- lower income populations that are not able to afford newspaper subscriptions are excluded when paywalls lock them out. With the decline of local newspapers, information increasingly flows from national outlets. [3] Public health and awareness are at stake -- all people have a right to protect themselves, their families, and their livelihood and deserve access to high-quality reporting and insight from scientific experts.

  87 of 100 Signatures

  Created by Angelo Carusone, Media Matters
• Time Warner: Don't Sell To Rupert Murdoch

  Last week, news broke that Rupert Murdoch -- through his company, 21st Century Fox -- tried to buy Time Warner, the world's second-largest media conglomerate, for more than $75 billion. Time Warner rejected the initial offer, but Murdoch seems hellbent on pushing ahead and buying the company. [1] There's a real risk that he'll ultimately prevail. If Time Warner sells, Rupert Murdoch would own HBO (Game of Thrones, The Sopranos, etc...), Cinemax, Cartoon Network, Adult Swim, TBS, TNT, DC Comics (Superman, Wonder Woman, Batman, etc...), and literally dozens of other companies, movie studios, and TV channels with which you're no doubt familiar. A combined Time Warner and 21st Century Fox would create a content company so large that it would radically transform the media landscape. Murdoch would control 40% of the cable market [2] -- eclipsing the 25% share of the nearest competitor, Disney. It would also mean that Murdoch would control about a 30% share of the movie market [3] -- a portion so staggeringly big that it'd be about twice the size of the nearest competitor. Giving one company this much control over our media would be terrible for consumers and the marketplace. According to Reuters, owning Time Warner would make Rupert Murdoch the undisputed "king" of the U.S. media.[4] And we've already seen the disastrous effects that come when Rupert Murdoch has unbridled media power. In the United Kingdom, Murdoch's dominating presence created a sense of impunity that, when combined with his culture of corruption, led to the now-infamous phone hacking scandal. There, Murdoch's papers engaged in telephone hacking at an industrial scale, ultimately stealing private information from thousands of people's phones over the course of several years. In Australia, Murdoch controls about 70% of the local newspaper market, which gives him an enormous amount of influence over the electoral process. That sheer size also creates an overall chilling effect. In 2013, Australia's largest progressive group attempted to run a TV ad that criticized Murdoch's extremely biased newspaper coverage. Every single major network refused to run the ad, with some reportedly citing fear of criticizing Murdoch as the reason for the decision. [5] These are just two of many examples of the harms that follow when Murdoch is allowed to concentrate media and irresponsibly wield the power that comes from it. --- [1] http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2014/07/rupert-murdoch-still-wants-time-warner-192517.html [2] As measured by cable subscriber fees. http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/foxs-play-time-warner-pros-719231 [3] Based on average of studio market share of years 2011 - 2014. http://goo.gl/zxyU27 [4] http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/07/17/us-time-warner-fox-idUSKBN0FL15T20140717 [5] http://mm4a.org/17FvTxY

  1,410 of 2,000 Signatures

  Created by Angelo S. Carusone, Media Matters for America