As I wrote in the article:
<blockquote><u>Disclosure:</u> The Center for Media and Democracy's Judith Siers-Poisson spoke at a press conference organized by opponents of the legislation, addressing the role of the astroturf group backing the bill.</blockquote>
That has been the extent of CMD's involvement on the issue; we don't support or oppose pieces of legislation.
I agree that it would be interesting to see if another poll with more neutral phrasing would find a different public response to the bill. If you would care to donate the $15,000 to $30,000 that a UW political science professor estimated such a poll would cost, we'll get right on that.
If Mary Cardona, Executive Director of the Wisconsin Association of PEG Channels, doesn't know where the $1 million figure came from, perhaps she should read her own reports every once and awhile.
<a href="http://www.saveaccesswisconsin.org/Assets/pdf/ConversionEquipmentExpense.pdf">According to this report</a>, from the Wisconsin Association of PEG Channels, the cost of PEG equipment upgrades will be $192,000 a year over 5 years, or $960,000. Sounds like $1 million to me, Mary.
Speaking of disingenuous, no where in this article do you mention that the Center for Media and Democracy, parent of PR Watch, is a member of "Teletruth Wisconsin", and listed as an official opponent of AB 207 on their website.
Its more than a little ironic that an organization that prides itself on demanding full disclosure in public debate can't even live up to its own simple standards. Scratch that, not ironic, hypocritical. And disappointing that you would tarnish your own reputation that way.
My advice to Teletruth/P.R. Watch/WisPEG is that if you really don't believe the results of the poll, if you really think the questions are biased, then issue your own poll. I'm guessing the only reason you haven't done that is because common sense tells you that the public hates cable companies so much and so few people really watch PEG programming, you know these poll results are dead-on.
But go ahead, prove me wrong.
AT&T is no longer a phone company. It's a marketing company, and it uses the same techniques to sell its products as marketing experts use to advise companies to sell corn flakes or junk food or (even more frightening) prescription drugs. See the ads.
AT&T has come up with a device, as the New York Times put it a while back, to do video on the cheap. It's technologically inferior to other methods of delivering video to the home, but it's relatively inexpensive and eminently marketable.
Of course, when you're trying to market an inferior product, you don't want pesky government regulators to try to impose technical standards on you, or yank your license to do business if you don't perform.
That's why video franchises under the Wisconsin bill are forever, regardless of whether they turn out to be a good deal for consumers or not.
Why would the Legislature agree to such a scheme?
Maybe because AT&T and its cable allies opened their wallets in a touching display of affection for candidates for public office in Wisconsin in 2006 and 2007.
For AT&T alone that translated into more than $109,000 in individual and political action committee (PAC) contributions from January, 2006 through June 2007, according to reports filed with the State Elections Board and a campaign finance database maintained by the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign (WDC).
Charter Communications employees threw in nearly $17,000 in individual contributions, and Time Warner employees threw in $7,830, according to the WDC database.
When push comes to shove, will that affection translate into votes for a cable bill being pushed by AT&T? It seems to be.
Full disclosure: I'm a shareholder in both AT&T and Time Warner, though I'm embarrassed to say so. Also, I work for the Wisconsin Alliance of Cities, which wants to see improvements in consumer protection, public access offerings and local government control along the lines of a law enacted in Illinois, and I'm proud to say so.
A follow-up [http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-US-Canada.html report by the Associated Press] reveals that some of the Disney video's stirring imagery is actually of Canada:
About four minutes into the seven-minute production, viewers are treated to the impressive sight and sound of water roaring over Niagara Falls before the screen shifts to the Lincoln Memorial.
In showing the natural wonder, Disney's filmmakers, however, chose the Horseshoe Falls, the only one of Niagara's three waterfalls to lie almost entirely on the Canadian side of the border separating western New York state from southern Ontario province.
Making matters worse, a visitor to the U.S. would not even be able to get the same view of the falls in the video because the scene was shot from a vantage point in Canada. ...
State Department spokesman Sean McCormack could not speak to the scenery in the short film. But he stressed that Niagara Falls "is a shared natural wonder, a gateway for both our countries and anyone looking at the video will understand how proud America is to share it with Canada."
I thought you were talking about Center for Consumer Freedom's Rick Berman appearing on The Colbert Report to advocate unfettered access to treats:
http://www.comedycentral.com/motherload/index.jhtml?ml_video=123821
(Sorry for the commercial.)
Colbert: "I think I should smoke in your car." Nailed him, but you guys should still demand equal time.
As long as we're off on this tangent, you should put today's Dilbert strip on the cover of your updated edition of Trust Us, We're Experts:
http://www.dilbert.com/comics/dilbert/archive/images/dilbert2002444471031.gif
A follow-up [http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-US-Canada.html report by the Associated Press] reveals that some of the Disney video's stirring imagery is actually of Canada:
Pages